The slowdown is thrashing. I'm not sure exactly where it is happening
(can any one recomend a decent profiler for linux ?) but, like I said,
my guess is its the list implementation. the memory hogging means leaks
- I'm about sure that there are no leaks left (or at least no serious
ones) in the boxes themselves, so you have to make sure that the smsc
module you are using doesn't leak memory.

--
Oded Arbel
m-Wise Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Next Friday will not be your lucky day.  As a matter of fact, you don't
have a lucky day this year.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:06 PM
> To: Kalle Marjola
> Cc: Kannel-devel (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [BUG] list implementation too slow.
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Hi, 
> 
> Kalle Marjola wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Oded Arbel wrote:
> > 
> > > I think this problem occurs as the bearerbox can't send 
> messages as fast
> > > as they are delivered (probably due to a large burst and 
> then sustained
> > > high load). I see messages queued on the module's queue, 
> and then it
> > > slows doesn the module more, so it can handle less 
> messages (while high
> > > load continues) and so the queue grows longer.
> > 
> > The solution to this is to fix all code so that outgoing messages
> > have higher priority than incoming ones, i.e. do not read anything
> > from bufefrs before outgoing messages have been sent. NOTE: You need
> > to set conn() buffer size, otherwise this does not help as things
> > get added to its internal buffer... I did this for my modified
> > version and got rid of growing size (in memory) and slowdown.
> > 
> > (however, I do not know how SMSC would react if the socket 
> gets filled up
> >  because the other end is not reading it fast enough..)
> 
> If one Kannel cannot handle the traffic, we must use many of 
> them (many
> bearer-
> boxes) in an array. But problem here is the slowdown: Kannel 
> start with
> very
> good 350 msg/s but after an hour does only 50 msg/s. And 
> bearerbox grabs
> about
> half of the memory :( 
> 
> Aarno
> 
> 

Reply via email to