Sorry for the delay. According with a third party that conducted the testing in our platforms, the solution posted by info.ubichip did work!
I didn't make the testing myself, so I'll dig a little more about what they did and how did they come to this conclusion before officially saying "it works", but so far it seems that kannel honors the priority setting on it's internal queue management algorithm. You can try for yourself and post the results, so we can cross-check and maybe explain further on the users guide so others can benefit from our testings. Regards, Alejandro On 10/10/07, Shantanu Chauhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Alejandro: > Anything on my question? > > > > Hi Alejandro: > > Just to confirm, were you were able to test the Kannel queue priority? I > > too had a similiar problem and would like to hear your experience. > > I checked the code and was only able to find that the priority we sent is > > set into submit_sm by kannel. I also noted that in smpp 3.4 0 is the > > lowest priority (3 is highest). So is it differenent for Kannel or it is a > > mistake in user guide? > > > > I went through the code, in kannel 1.4.1 their is something maintained as > > priority_queue. This is not there in previous version of kannel. Is this > > a new change in Kannel? > > > > Please let me know if this queue priority feature really jumps kannel > > queue. > > > > Regards > > Shantanu Chauhan > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Alejandro Guerrieri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <users@kannel.org> > > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 11:08 PM > > Subject: Re: Kannel queue management > > > > > >> Yes, I know, fake smsc it's "too fake" sometimes :) > >> > >> What I'll do is: > >> > >> 1. Modify the default priority level to 1 (or anything bigger than 0 > >> and lower than 4, for instance), so I don't have to modify each and > >> every application we have. > >> > >> 2. Try setting priority=0 on some messages during a "heavily queued" > >> scenario. > >> > >> 3. See if this improves things. > >> > >> Thanks for your help, > >> > >> Alejandro > >> > >> On 9/14/07, info.ubichip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> If you make test with the fake sms, it could not work, what I'm quite > >>> sure > >>> is that works with normal traffic. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> > >>> Ps : if you need more help, don't hesitate > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Alejandro Guerrieri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Sent: vendredi 14 septembre 2007 10:05 > >>> To: users@kannel.org > >>> Subject: Re: Kannel queue management > >>> > >>> Thanks a lot for your help. I'll follow your advice and do some tests, > >>> to see if it solves our particular problem. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Alejandro > >>> > >>> On 9/14/07, info.ubichip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > I cannot answering directly in reference with the source code but what > >>> > I > >>> > could tell you that we are using this feature sometime with the kannel > >>> > gateway I got, and the feature is working fine. We send periodically > >>> > some > >>> > test sms in order to valid the quality of service of the queue. We put > >>> high > >>> > priority on them and they always become on the top when we submit them > >>> > whatever could be the queue size. > >>> > > >>> > So I suggest you make some tests and so you will be able to see if it > >>> > is > >>> > running ;-) > >>> > > >>> > Hope I give you some help. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -----Original Message----- > >>> > From: Alejandro Guerrieri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > Sent: vendredi 14 septembre 2007 09:33 > >>> > To: info.ubichip > >>> > Cc: users@kannel.org > >>> > Subject: Re: Kannel queue management > >>> > > >>> > The priority flag is part of the SMPP specs and gets set using the > >>> > "priority" parameter. I agree with you, I don't think that any SMSC > >>> > would base his internal priority queue on my behalf. > >>> > > >>> > What I didn't find (yet, at least) is any actions being take by kannel > >>> > in spite of the priority setting. > >>> > > >>> > I mean, I see it's being passed on the SMPP PDU, but I don't see any > >>> > actions being take on kannel's internal queueing. > >>> > > >>> > Under this scenario, if I have thousands of messages queued on the > >>> > store file, setting higher priority to a new message won't make any > >>> > difference. > >>> > > >>> > Am I correct here or am I missing something? > >>> > > >>> > Thank you in advance, > >>> > > >>> > Alejandro > >>> > On 9/14/07, info.ubichip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > > Hi, > >>> > > > >>> > > I don't think any operator let you send the priority parameter to > >>> > > their > >>> > SMSC > >>> > > through SMPP, if yes, they will override your value in any case. > >>> > > What I > >>> > > suggest to you is to put all your regular traffic as lowest priority > >>> > > and > >>> > so > >>> > > your "emergency" sms with higher priority. I already using this in > >>> Kannel > >>> > > and it is working perfectly whatever we got lot sms in queues. > >>> > > > >>> > > Hope thath helps ! > >>> > > > >>> > > Regards > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > -----Original Message----- > >>> > > From: Alejandro Guerrieri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > > Sent: jeudi 13 septembre 2007 18:30 > >>> > > To: users@kannel.org > >>> > > Subject: Re: Kannel queue management > >>> > > > >>> > > I've been checking the source code, and so far I've found that the > >>> > > priority parameter get sent into the SMPP PDU, so at least that > >>> > > wouldn't help in my case, specially since the default priority is > >>> > > zero > >>> > > (the highest, BTW). > >>> > > > >>> > > This parameter seems to be passed "as is" to the underlying > >>> > > protocol. > >>> > > If I have thousand of messages queued on "my side", there won't be > >>> > > any > >>> > > difference setting the priority field. > >>> > > > >>> > > Am I wrong? Anybody can throw some light on this? > >>> > > > >>> > > BTW, I've found an error on the comments on the source code: > >>> > > > >>> > > /* check for any specified priority value in range [0-5] */ > >>> > > if (cfg_get_integer(&priority, grp, octstr_imm("priority")) > >>> > > == -1) > >>> > > priority = SMPP_DEFAULT_PRIORITY; > >>> > > else if (priority < 0 || priority > 3) > >>> > > panic(0, "SMPP: Invalid value for priority directive in > >>> > > configuraton (allowed range 0-3)."); > >>> > > > >>> > > [0-5] should say [0-3] :) > >>> > > > >>> > > (Sorry this snippet should have gone to the devel list) > >>> > > > >>> > > Regards, > >>> > > > >>> > > Alejandro > >>> > > > >>> > > On 9/13/07, info.ubichip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > > > Hi, > >>> > > > > >>> > > > To answer your Q1 and Q4:as far as I know, the priority parameter > >>> > interact > >>> > > > directly with the kannel queue, that means a message with a higher > >>> > > priority > >>> > > > is sent quicker than previous one. I'm using it to pass debug and > >>> > > emergency > >>> > > > sms in case of failure of one server. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > To determine if 0 is the highest or the lowest, you have to test > >>> > > > or > >>> take > >>> > a > >>> > > > look in the source code ;-) > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > BR > >>> > > > > >>> > > > -----Original Message----- > >>> > > > From: Alejandro Guerrieri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > > > Sent: jeudi 13 septembre 2007 09:45 > >>> > > > To: users@kannel.org > >>> > > > Subject: Kannel queue management > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Hi, > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I'm facing some problems with carrier's connections due to limited > >>> > > > throughput on their part. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > It's not really a kannel problem, the SMSC connection has a lower > >>> > > > throughput, so at peak hours we experience message queueing. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > The problem is, we need some messages to get sent as soon as > >>> > > > posible, > >>> > > > but when we have thousands of messages queued for delivery there's > >>> > > > a > >>> > > > significant delay (it may be hours from the time of queueing). > >>> > > > > >>> > > > So my question is: is there any way to handle individual message's > >>> > > > priority at sending time? My goal is to be able to enqueue some > >>> > > > messages with "critical" priority and they should be sent asap. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I've checked the user guide and found the "priority" parameter: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > priority number Optional. Sets the Priority value (range > >>> > > > 0-3 > >>> is > >>> > > > allowed). > >>> > > > > >>> > > > This leads to some questions: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > 1. Do this parameter affect the queuing of outgoing messages > >>> > > > inside > >>> > > > kannel as I expect it to be, or it's just a parameter being passed > >>> > > > as > >>> > > > part of the PDU? > >>> > > > 2. Which priority gets set by default if the paremeter is missing? > >>> > > > 3. Which one is the highest (zero I guess?) > >>> > > > 4. Does it work for SMPP and HTTP connections as well? > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Thank you in advance, > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Alejandro. > >>> > > > -- > >>> > > > Alejandro Guerrieri > >>> > > > Magicom > >>> > > > http://www.magicom-bcn.net/ > >>> > > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/aguerrieri > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > _____ > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com> : message Sortant sain. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Base de donnees virale (VPS) : 000774-5, 13/09/2007 > >>> > > > Analyse le : 13/09/2007 12:40:55 > >>> > > > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > -- > >>> > > Alejandro Guerrieri > >>> > > Magicom > >>> > > http://www.magicom-bcn.net/ > >>> > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/aguerrieri > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > _____ > >>> > > > >>> > > Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com> : message Sortant sain. > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > Base de donnees virale (VPS) : 000774-5, 13/09/2007 > >>> > > Analyse le : 13/09/2007 20:43:30 > >>> > > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Alejandro Guerrieri > >>> > Magicom > >>> > http://www.magicom-bcn.net/ > >>> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/aguerrieri > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > _____ > >>> > > >>> > Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com> : message Sortant sain. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Base de donnees virale (VPS) : 000774-5, 13/09/2007 > >>> > Analyse le : 14/09/2007 09:56:40 > >>> > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Alejandro Guerrieri > >>> Magicom > >>> http://www.magicom-bcn.net/ > >>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/aguerrieri > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _____ > >>> > >>> Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com> : message Sortant sain. > >>> > >>> > >>> Base de donnees virale (VPS) : 000774-5, 13/09/2007 > >>> Analyse le : 14/09/2007 10:30:17 > >>> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Alejandro Guerrieri > >> Magicom > >> http://www.magicom-bcn.net/ > >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/aguerrieri > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- Alejandro Guerrieri Magicom http://www.magicom-bcn.net/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/aguerrieri
