On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Stipe Tolj wrote: > > How many of you really use the feature of independent smsbox in different > > machine than the bearerbox? (or several smsboxes). Just thinking about the > > old 'thread smsbox' which was in old Kannel... > > we do, at least in some extend. Are you planing to incorporate smsbox > as bearerbox thread?!
Well, several threads... (and this is just speculation. Last time the idea was torpedoed down because of load distribution reasons, after I have done some tests etc.) > If yes, we dislike this because of several reasons, one of them is the > abilitiy to make config changes 'on-the-fly' to smsbox related groups, > while bearerbox is still running. Do you have some nifty way to take smsbox down for that use, so that no messages are lost while they are being transfered between bearerbox and smsbox? (or open http connections) Dynamic configuration loading is doable (been there...), so what are those other reasons? (it is amazing how much it simplifies things to have smsbox in same process. And makes Kannel much faster) (for distribution, the possibility to run distinct smsbox could be left, too, alhought I do not see much use for that...) -- &kalle marjola product concept manager NETikos finland (http://www.netikos.fi)
