Summary:	ASTERISK-06668: [patch] billsec and duration record only max int (x86_64)
Reporter:	alric (alric)	Labels:
Date Opened:	2006-03-30 15:42:15.000-0600	Date Closed:	2006-06-08 09:15:47
Priority:	Minor	Regression?	No
Status:	Closed/Complete	Components:	CDR/cdr_odbc
Versions:		Frequency of Occurrence
Related Issues:
Environment:		Attachments:	( 0) 20060410__bug6851.diff.txt ( 1) cdr_odbc_64bitint.patch ( 2) cdr_odbc.c.diff
Description:	I noticed this yesterday when I was working on adding the 'answer' and 'end' fields to my cdr_odbc.  On my machine (Athlon64, CentOS 4.3 x86_64), with an unmodified cdr_odbc, max int gets recorded for each the billsec and duration fields, disregarding the actual length of the call.  I'm using cdr_odbc to talk to ODBC which records in a mysql DB backend.
Comments:	By: Andrey S Pankov (casper) 2006-03-30 16:31:05.000-0600 x86_64 or amd64? (uname -m) Maybe ODBC problem, what ODBC variant are you using? By: alric (alric) 2006-03-30 16:33:23.000-0600 x86_64.  unixODBC 2.2.11.  It could very well be an ODBC problem, I have no idea where it is. By: Tilghman Lesher (tilghman) 2006-03-30 16:44:04.000-0600 I'd expect you to have the same problem with amaflags and disposition, unless amaflags was 0 and/or you had set up dispositionstring=yes in cdr_odbc.conf. By: Andrey S Pankov (casper) 2006-03-30 16:46:16.000-0600 You may try to look at this to see what needs to be changed: http://sisyphus.ru/srpm/unixODBC/changelog http://sisyphus.ru/srpm/unixODBC/get Look at the patches provided in .sprm package... Anyway I'm not sure (have never tried) if that helps. By: alric (alric) 2006-03-30 17:02:57.000-0600 Actually, I do have dispositionstring=yes. By: Andrey S Pankov (casper) 2006-04-10 13:41:58 Did recompilation of unixODBC with x86_64 support helped? By: alric (alric) 2006-04-10 14:01:47 I'm using the RPM package of unixODBC, but it says its x86_64.   unixODBC.x86_64 - 2.2.11-1.RHEL4.1 By: alric (alric) 2006-04-10 14:06:32 Here's an example record: | 2006-04-10 14:04:22 | "Line 1" <nathan> | nathan | 100 | from-sip | SIP/nathan-13be |            | Playback | tt-monkeys | 2147483647 | 2147483647 | ANSWERED    |        3 |             | 1144695862.1 |           | The 3 is amaflags.  Row order is: calldate, clid, src, dst, dcontext, channel, dstchannel, lastapp, lastdata, duration, billsec, disposition, amaflags, accountcode, uniqueid, userfield. By: Andrey S Pankov (casper) 2006-04-10 14:34:30 Can you post the same record form cdr_csv? Please 'set verbose 11' to see cdr_odbc logs. Maybe there will be smth interesting there... By: alric (alric) 2006-04-10 15:12:09 cdr_odbc merely reports that the query was successful with 11 verbosity. Record from cdr_csv: "","nathan","100","from-sip","""Line 1"" <nathan>","SIP/nathan-13be","","Playback","tt-monkeys","2006-04-10 14:04:22","2006-04- 10 14:04:22","2006-04-10 14:04:29",7,7,"ANSWERED","DOCUMENTATION" By: Andrey S Pankov (casper) 2006-04-10 15:43:23 Please try the patch. Disclaimer is on file. By: alric (alric) 2006-04-10 15:58:03 Same results it looks like. By: Andrey S Pankov (casper) 2006-04-10 16:17:58 Did you try to look at altlinux/sisyphus patches? By: Tilghman Lesher (tilghman) 2006-04-10 22:54:02 Alric:  please try this patch.  I hate to have to do this to you, but since so few of the developers have 64-bit machines, it's difficult to pre-test these patches before we ask you to try them for yourself. By: alric (alric) 2006-04-11 07:42:04 Thats fine with me.  The only 64-bit box I have is a development box anyway.  I don't mind hacking it up. I can test it later today and get back to you then. By: Serge Vecher (serge-v) 2006-05-04 10:28:43 Alric: did you try Corydon's patch? By: Donny Kavanagh (donnyk) 2006-05-25 17:55:01 Is your database server, on the same server or different? Assuming different, is it 64bit? By: Serge Vecher (serge-v) 2006-05-25 20:51:26 north: I think you wanted a reminder to try this at home ... By: Donny Kavanagh (donnyk) 2006-05-26 00:28:00 See the latest patch (cdr_odbc_64bitint.patch), probally a better solution.  Its pretty much un-tested but it should be ok. By: alric (alric) 2006-05-26 15:36:10 Just tried Corydon's patch, and after applying, I get no CDRs.  Just says query failed, then tries again, and fails again.  This is at verbosity 11. By: alric (alric) 2006-05-26 17:56:42 Spoke too soon on this.  Looks like my machine had freaked out for no apparent reason :/  Disregard that last comment.  On a side note, on a clean 1.2.7.1 I'm getting correct billsecs / duration now.  Going to see if anything changed in the database layers recently... By: Serge Vecher (serge-v) 2006-06-02 10:02:51 alric: so the problem is gone now? Any difference with the patch applied to the latest 1.2.8 sources? By: alric (alric) 2006-06-08 07:38:13 Yeah, I just tested everything out again and it looks like the problem is gone.  I don't think any the unixODBC or MyODBC code changed.  This is on clean 1.2.7.1. By: Serge Vecher (serge-v) 2006-06-08 09:15:28 Alric: thanks for reporting; closing the issue since the problem is mysteriously resolved. Please feel free to reopen the issue if it resurfaces again and you know  how to track it down. Thanks.