Hi,
Can anyone tell why my kannel gateway works for
some time and after some time it crashes by giving
error
Resource temporaryly unavailable.
I am having 248 MB RAM and 1 gb of swap space
and running it on Solaris 8 Intel system.
Any help please ?
From
Manish Khare
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
> Send users mailing list submissions to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
> http://kannel.3glab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is
> more specific
> than "Re: Contents of users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. RE: Libxml2-2.5 (Solomon Odeny)
> 2. Multiple Kannel BB for HA (Philippe Girolami (ESF)
> )
> 3. Re: Multiple Kannel BB for HA (Carwyn T. Edwards)
> 4. RE: Multiple Kannel BB for HA (Paul Keogh)
> 5. RE: Multiple Kannel BB for HA (Philippe Girolami
> (ESF))
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Solomon Odeny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Libxml2-2.5
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 15:42:21 +0300
>
> Thanks,
>
> I have installed the latest libxml2 but still get the
> following error
>
> configure: error: Libxml is too old. You need at least
> 2.2.5
>
> Any idea what the problem could be?
>
> Solomon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On Behalf Of
> Aarno Syv=E4nen
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 1:08 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Libxml2-2.5
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Solomon Odeny wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Anyone knows where I can get the latest version of
> Libxml. I need at le=
> ast
> > version 2.2.5 to install the latest kannel.
>
> See http://www.xmlsoft.org/downloads.html
>
> Aarno
>
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> From: "Philippe Girolami (ESF)"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Multiple Kannel BB for HA
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:16:18 +0100
>
> Hello,
>
> Has anyone ever deployed multiple BearerBoxes for
> High-availability purposes ? Do SMS-C usually allow two
> receivers to bind on the same address range ? How do
> they handle it usually : distribute load evenly (I'm
> probably dreaming here).
> Has anyone figured out a good way of doing this ? Maybe
> with load balancers ?
>
> Regards,
> Philippe Girolami
> Software Engineer
> I-Lab, Ericsson France
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:39:58 +0000
> From: "Carwyn T. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Philippe Girolami (ESF)"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Multiple Kannel BB for HA
>
> Philippe Girolami (ESF) wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >Has anyone ever deployed multiple BearerBoxes for
> High-availability purposes ? Do SMS-C usually allow two
> receivers to bind on the same address range ? How do
> they handle it usually : distribute load evenly (I'm
> probably dreaming here).
> >Has anyone figured out a good way of doing this ?
> Maybe with load balancers ?
> >
> Some operators will let you bind in with multiple RX
> channels others
> will not. If they do, the most common policy on the
> SMSC is to round
> robin over all the RX channels for a given address
> range. Other
> SMSCs/gateways will just use the last RX that connected
> for that range.
>
> Carwyn
>
> --
> Carwyn Edwards
> Software Engineer
>
> Hay Systems Ltd - http://www.haysystems.com/
> International GSM SMS Connectivity Providers
> (Now with high throughput two way international
> messaging)
>
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> From: "Paul Keogh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Multiple Kannel BB for HA
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:34:52 -0000
>
> > Has anyone ever deployed multiple BearerBoxes for
> > High-availability purposes ? Do SMS-C usually allow
> two
> > receivers to bind on the same address range ? How do
> they
> > handle it usually : distribute load evenly (I'm
> probably
> > dreaming here).
> > Has anyone figured out a good way of doing this ?
> Maybe with
> > load balancers ?
>
> Yes, we've looked at some architectures for this. As
> pointed out,
> it depends on the SMSC provider and on your position;
> if you're
> just another ESME gateway supplier then you're usually
> subject to
> a retail type of policy, if you're supplying core
> network technology
> in terms of proxy solutions etc., then they're much
> more flexible.
> The SMSC routing algorithm in the BB does have an
> element of load
> sharing but as BBs don't know about each other, you
> need to get down
> to the IP level to share between BBs. A more visionary
> approach would
> be to replace the internal Box comms. with a message
> queue, thus allowing
> a many to many relationship between SMS boxes/clients
> and BBs. Great
> for resilance but don't think it would work for WAP.
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> From: "Philippe Girolami (ESF)"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Multiple Kannel BB for HA
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:54:03 +0100
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> > Yes, we've looked at some architectures for this. As
> pointed out,
> > it depends on the SMSC provider and on your position;
> if you're
> > just another ESME gateway supplier then you're
> usually subject to
> > a retail type of policy, if you're supplying core
> network technology
> > in terms of proxy solutions etc., then they're much
> more flexible.
> > The SMSC routing algorithm in the BB does have an
> element of load
> > sharing but as BBs don't know about each other, you
> need to get down
> > to the IP level to share between BBs. A more
> visionary approach would
> > be to replace the internal Box comms. with a message
> queue,
> > thus allowing
> > a many to many relationship between SMS boxes/clients
> and BBs. Great
> > for resilance but don't think it would work for WAP.
> Did you end up finding a suitable solution for your
> problem ? At the IP level ?
>
> We have indeed started looking at IP level load
> balancing.
> Take for example SMPP, we are wondering if the SMS-C
> typically allow multiple binds to the same address
> range so as to allow multiple BB to BIND behind an IP
> load balancer. Also, Kannel currently doesn't react
> well to failing BINDs so that may mean changing the
> code if the SMS-C doesn't allow multiple binds so that
> the bearer box still starts and can receive traffic
> from the SMS-C through the load balancer. Does this
> make any sense ?
>
>
> On another hand, has anyone ever used commercial
> SMS-gateways ? What is the general feeling ?
>
> Regards,
> Philippe
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://kannel.3glab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
> End of users Digest
