Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Enhancement: Avoid log flooding with useless negative rtt messages #322

Open
gjaekel opened this issue Dec 17, 2020 · 0 comments
Open

Enhancement: Avoid log flooding with useless negative rtt messages #322

gjaekel opened this issue Dec 17, 2020 · 0 comments

Comments

@gjaekel
Copy link

gjaekel commented Dec 17, 2020

In our production environment, messages like

20201217-130426.066 INFO  [Thread-86] [o.j.o.p.o.JitsiJvbWrapper] WARNING: [1077] [confId=4a2658cf6c0c1ad6 epId=e4bbf339 gid=354370 stats_id=Brittany-aNP [email protected]] EndpointConnectionStats.processReportBlock#153: Negative rtt value: -1.0101310000000012 ms, remote processing delay was PT0.176010131S (11535), srSentTime was 2020-12-17T12:04:25.890Z, received time was 2020-12-17T12:04:26.065Z
20201217-130427.006 INFO  [Thread-86] [o.j.o.p.o.JitsiJvbWrapper] WARNING: [1076] [confId=4a2658cf6c0c1ad6 epId=e4bbf339 gid=354370 stats_id=Brittany-aNP conf_name=************************] EndpointConnectionStats.processReportBlock#153: Negative rtt value: -1.0093990000000304 ms, remote processing delay was PT0.719009399S (47121), srSentTime was 2020-12-17T12:04:26.287Z, received time was 2020-12-17T12:04:27.005Z
20201217-130427.012 INFO  [Thread-86] [o.j.o.p.o.JitsiJvbWrapper] WARNING: [1071] [confId=4a2658cf6c0c1ad6 epId=e4bbf339 gid=354370 stats_id=Brittany-aNP conf_name=************************] EndpointConnectionStats.processReportBlock#153: Negative rtt value: -1.0092769999999973 ms, remote processing delay was PT1.122009277S (73532), srSentTime was 2020-12-17T12:04:25.890Z, received time was 2020-12-17T12:04:27.011Z
20201217-130427.117 INFO  [Thread-86] [o.j.o.p.o.JitsiJvbWrapper] WARNING: [1065] [confId=5b58f5db317c7912 epId=576f776c gid=140178 stats_id=Carlos-8a0 conf_name=************************] EndpointConnectionStats.processReportBlock#153: Negative rtt value: -1.0069580000000542 ms, remote processing delay was PT0.279006958S (18285), srSentTime was 2020-12-17T12:04:26.838Z, received time was 2020-12-17T12:04:27.116Z
20201217-130429.006 INFO  [Thread-86] [o.j.o.p.o.JitsiJvbWrapper] WARNING: [1076] [confId=4a2658cf6c0c1ad6 epId=e4bbf339 gid=354370 stats_id=Brittany-aNP conf_name=************************] EndpointConnectionStats.processReportBlock#153: Negative rtt value: -1.012939000000074 ms, remote processing delay was PT0.532012939S (34866), srSentTime was 2020-12-17T12:04:28.474Z, received time was 2020-12-17T12:04:29.005Z
20201217-130429.721 INFO  [Thread-86] [o.j.o.p.o.JitsiJvbWrapper] WARNING: [1068] [confId=4a2658cf6c0c1ad6 epId=e4bbf339 gid=354370 stats_id=Brittany-aNP conf_name=************************] EndpointConnectionStats.processReportBlock#153: Negative rtt value: -1.004760000000033 ms, remote processing delay was PT0.28300476S (18547), srSentTime was 2020-12-17T12:04:29.438Z, received time was 2020-12-17T12:04:29.720Z

really flood the log. This message are produced by

} else if (rtt < -1.0) {
// Allow some small slop here, since receivedTime and srSentTime are only accurate to the nearest
// millisecond.
logger.warn(
"Negative rtt value: $rtt ms, remote processing delay was " +
"$remoteProcessingDelay (${reportBlock.delaySinceLastSr}), srSentTime was $srSentTime, " +
"received time was $receivedTime"
)

I wonder, if the slop value of 1.0ms is small enough and if there might be "other" reasons that lead to the point of view of a "time-travel paradoxon", i.e. the answer is delivered before the question was asked.

I suggest either to raise the slop value and/or choose a lower logging level, i.e. INFO or even DEBUG for this message. Because of the only instrument I see is to quite this complete logger by the logging configuration and this will cut off "valid" WARNINGs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant