It's how I am testing now. With bb1 & bb2 being the same bearerbox instance with 2 smsc's defined.
Just I think I am testing the smsc driver more than smppbox itself at the moment. Even if in all setup's, only smppbox is different and the rest is all the same. Let me think about it some more. == Rene -----Original Message----- From: Nikos Balkanas [mailto:nbalka...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 25 August, 2010 13:56 To: Rene Kluwen; devel@kannel.org Subject: Re: Open smppbox queues -> priority queues Can fakesmpp help? The test wouldn't be isolated, which would be ideal, but I need to implement an ESME client for that. But maybe it could show in: fakesmpp <- bb1 <- smppbox <- bb2 <- fakesmpp You will need to feed fake smpp with a copy of bb1's configuration, but with smsbox-port set to bb2. If not, let me know and I will add support for smppbox. BR, Nikos ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rene Kluwen" <rene.klu...@chimit.nl> To: "'Nikos Balkanas'" <nbalka...@gmail.com>; <devel@kannel.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 2:41 PM Subject: RE: Open smppbox queues -> priority queues > Before, I could not test properly. Just got my office system & Internet > connection back yesterday, since we've moved to another place. > Testing via a GSM Internet link is not quite ideal :)... > > So I've got to think of some kind of bench mark (ideas?) to compare the > different implementations with. > > == Rene > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nikos Balkanas [mailto:nbalka...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 25 August, 2010 00:53 > To: Rene Kluwen; devel@kannel.org > Subject: Re: Open smppbox queues -> priority queues > > Hi Rene, > > I am really confused here. I am still waiting for an answer. Are queues > slowing down performance or not? If yes by what amount? Priority queues > are > the real hogger, especially the larger they get. I don't think that this > is > necessary, since they are prioritized in bb. I think since they are such a > performance degradation, they shouldn't be implemented more than once. > > Lastly consider that if you put priority queues in smppbox, there will > always be people thinking that they do not work the way they are supposed > to > > ;-) > > BR, > Nikos > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rene Kluwen > To: devel@kannel.org > Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:00 PM > Subject: Open smppbox queues -> priority queues > > > Here again another patch, which uses priority queues. > > Looking for a way to come up with representative performance figures so we > can decide which implementation is best. > > == Rene > > > >
