Hi list,
I have 2 connection one RX and the other TX, the both connections are
connected fine, I can receive the SMS using the RX, but when I use the TX
connection to send SMS it is changed to reconnecting and I get the following
error in my logs:
2008-12-02 14:21:07 [10148] [7] DEBUG:
Hi all,
Am tyrus and this is my first post to the list. Am currently trying to find
out if there are any open source USSD gateways seeing that kannel doesnt
support USSD yet. I have used Kannel and its been nothing but successful.
Any pointers in the right direction will be highly appreciated.
Any news? Anyone?
- Original Message -
From: Nikos Balkanas
To: users@kannel.org
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 6:32 AM
Subject: Wap Push (PAP) Question
Hi,
I've tried some tests and it doesn't seem that kannel supports multiple
addresses/pap file as specified in the
Hello,
when you trash the .store file, don't forget to remove the .store.bak as
well otherwise, it will retry to send all the remaining message.
regards
_
From: Tony Kirkham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: lundi 1 décembre 2008 21:32
To: users@kannel.org
Subject: Removing an
And do it without kannel running, of course ;)
If you're using the spool store file, you can remove the individual message
(assuming that you can find out what's the message causing the error).
Regards,
Alejandro
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:49 PM, info.ubichip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Hi,
During my PPG benchmarks (through fake smsc) with 2 different clients,
bearerbox excibited an increasing memory allocation profile starting from 9MB
till 2.2GB at the end of the test run. Upon finishing the test and all queue
cleared, memory wasn't released. Additionally by running the
Sounds very much like the Solaris 10 ARC-Effect. Are you using ZFS
Filesystem?
Regards
Falko
Nikos Balkanas schrieb:
Hi,
During my PPG benchmarks (through fake smsc) with 2 different clients,
bearerbox excibited an increasing memory allocation profile starting
from 9MB till 2.2GB at the
Nope. Regular ufs. In any case bearerbox's memory was increasing and
accounting for all missing RAM, not some kind of cache. As I mentioned after
consuming all available physical RAM bearerbox started eating up the swap as
well. This is not the way of file caches :-).
BR,
Nikos
- Original