Hi Rene, I don't really understand why do you need this patch to get more performance... If you will use queues you have also use store or you have to delay acks to the client. And as far as I see it will have the same effect if client would use windowing and you just forward messages to bearerbox without any queues because you will have queues overhead.
Thanks, Alexander Malysh Am 22.08.2010 um 21:03 schrieb Rene Kluwen: > Sorry, forgot to copy the list. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rene Kluwen [mailto:rene.klu...@chimit.nl] > Sent: Sunday, 22 August, 2010 20:53 > To: 'Hillel Bilman'; 'Davit Mirzoyan'; 'Alvaro Cornejo'; 'Nikos Balkanas'; > 'ad...@impexrur.pl' > Subject: RE: smppbox bulk sms: slow reception from a client > > For the ones who are worried about smppbox performance. Here is something > that I believe in better than the queue implementation (like in my earlier > post of today). > > At some point in time, I made smppbox wait for a bearerbox ack before > acknowledging the message back to the ESME and vice versa. In the following > patch, I turned that back again. I immediately acknowledge the message, > irregardless what it's relaying status later is going to be. > > If you have problems with smppbox and/or slow performance, this patch might > be for you. I made the patch in such a manner that it is easy to make a > configuration option for this, in a later stage. > > Please test. > > == Rene > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hillel Bilman [mailto:hbil...@ecommunicate.biz] > Sent: Sunday, 22 August, 2010 18:59 > To: rene.klu...@chimit.nl > Cc: devel@kannel.org > Subject: RE: smppbox bulk sms: slow reception from a client > > Thanks for the update and to Chimit for smppbox in general. > > To take up the discussion from the user group, you mentioned a great idea to > have another set of queues that smppbox only uses. > To add to this, it would be great to have the same set of queues where you > can set priority and range 0-3 is allowed. Then this prevents your smppbox > flooding bearer box and also you can far more easily isolate problems from > smppbox. > > Regards > > > > <smppbox_direct_acks_1.patch>
