. Otherwise I
think it is high time to wrap it up.
BR,
Nikos
- Original Message - From: Juan Nin jua...@gmail.com
To: users@kannel.org
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: Kannel profermance
We're not saying if it's typical or not typical, we're saying exactly
AFAIK Kannel set throughput to 100/second. So if we want more then we increase
the number. Otherwise decrease to avoid throttling error from telco.
sangprabv
sangpr...@gmail.com
http://www.petitiononline.com/froyo/
On Aug 14, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Juan Nin wrote:
Actually you're wrong.
You
: Kannel profermance
AFAIK Kannel set throughput to 100/second. So if we want more then we
increase the number. Otherwise decrease to avoid throttling error from
telco.
sangprabv
sangpr...@gmail.com
http://www.petitiononline.com/froyo/
On Aug 14, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Juan Nin wrote:
Actually
...@gmail.com
To: users@kannel.org
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Kannel profermance
So you're saying that on any server and/or architecture the results
will be the same?
Doesn't seem very reasonable...
2010/8/14 Nikos Balkanas nbalka...@gmail.com:
Actually you have missed
(not tested yet).
If in doubt run your own tests.
Nikos
- Original Message - From: Juan Nin jua...@gmail.com
To: users@kannel.org
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Kannel profermance
So you're saying that on any server and/or architecture the results
retries them every 30.
BR,
Nikos
- Original Message -
From: Alejandro Guerrieri
To: Nikos Balkanas
Cc: Juan Nin ; users@kannel.org
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: Kannel profermance
Your performance tests, while worth looking as a general reference
- Original Message -
From: Alejandro Guerrieri
To: Nikos Balkanas
Cc: Juan Nin ; users@kannel.org
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: Kannel profermance
Your performance tests, while worth looking as a general reference, are
probably near to useless as benchmarks
...@gmail.com
*To:* Nikos Balkanas nbalka...@gmail.com
*Cc:* Juan Nin jua...@gmail.com ; users@kannel.org
*Sent:* Saturday, August 14, 2010 2:46 PM
*Subject:* Re: Kannel profermance
Your performance tests, while worth looking as a general reference, are
probably near to useless as benchmarks
is not part of
kannel and irrelevant to benchmarks.
BR,
Nikos
- Original Message -
From: Alejandro Guerrieri
To: Nikos Balkanas
Cc: Juan Nin ; users@kannel.org
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 1:18 AM
Subject: Re: Kannel profermance
Hmm, nope, the fact is, you performed some benchmarks
...@gmail.com
To: users@kannel.org
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: Kannel profermance
I agree that we were talking about Kannel performance itself, isolated
from apps themselves (Alex's point #4).
But regarding all of his other points, I agree with all of them, and
without having
, real network is not part of
kannel and irrelevant to benchmarks.
BR,
Nikos
- Original Message - From: Alejandro Guerrieri
To: Nikos Balkanas
Cc: Juan Nin ; users@kannel.org
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 1:18 AM
Subject: Re: Kannel profermance
Hmm, nope, the fact is, you performed
We're not saying if it's typical or not typical, we're saying exactly
that, that it all depends A LOT on your hardware and architecture
configuration.
Such environments may not be typical for a single user who is just
doing some basic stuff, or for a small company or others, but it is
very typical
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: Kannel profermance
We're not saying if it's typical or not typical, we're saying exactly
that, that it all depends A LOT on your hardware and architecture
configuration.
Such environments may not be typical for a single user who is just
doing some
are faster
than others.
2) A separate no-logging disk partition (ie ext-2) for storage queue would
speed up I/O.
BR,
Nikos
- Original Message -
From: Ravindra Gupta // Viva
To: Alvaro Cornejo
Cc: users@kannel.org
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: Kannel profermance
Dear Team
2010/8/13 Nikos Balkanas nbalka...@gmail.com:
It is unlikely that kannel is your bottleneck. It can handle ~1000 MO/s, 750
MT/s (internal DLRs) or 450 MT/s (DB DLRs).
Just curious to know where do you get those values from...
What Kannel supports depends on your hardware and architecture
Ok, just saw on another thread where you got those values from, but
again, that's very system specific.
I guess you point was just to say that Kannel was not the issue for
his bottleneck, but saying It can handle ~1000 MO/s, 750 MT/s
(internal DLRs) or 450 MT/s (DB DLRs) may give the wrong
You can use throughput directive :)
Beware of your telco policy, some telcos limit MT from us ;)
sangprabv
sangpr...@gmail.com
http://www.petitiononline.com/froyo/
On Aug 14, 2010, at 1:33 AM, Ravindra Gupta // Viva wrote:
Dear Team,
Sorry for previous mail.
I am using kannel 1.4.3
Actually you're wrong.
You would use the throughput directive if you want to restrict your throughput.
If you don't want to restrict it then you should not set it at all
(but you may receive throttling errors form the remote SMSC)
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 1:42 AM, sangprabv sangpr...@gmail.com
.
BR,
Nikos
- Original Message -
From: Juan Nin jua...@gmail.com
To: users@kannel.org
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: Kannel profermance
Ok, just saw on another thread where you got those values from, but
again, that's very system specific.
I guess you point
:33 AM
Subject: Re: Kannel profermance
Ok, just saw on another thread where you got those values from, but
again, that's very system specific.
I guess you point was just to say that Kannel was not the issue for
his bottleneck, but saying It can handle ~1000 MO/s, 750 MT/s
(internal DLRs
20 matches
Mail list logo
