Sounds like it would be safer to have your application insert into two different sqlbox tables and then have two different sqlbox instances feed the same bearerbox.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:07 AM, spameden <spame...@gmail.com> wrote: > most likely you didn't optimize mysql > > most work sqlbox is being done on INSERT rather than SELECT and DELETE, > try using INSERT DELAYED instead of INSERT in SQLBOX_MYSQL_INSERT_QUERY in > gw/sqlbox_mysql.h or optimize your MySQL setup. > > try also to test kannel's speed without sqlbox involved at all without > database, might be a problem on your smsc operator side as well. > > > > 2012/7/16 Ashish Agarwal <ashisha...@gmail.com> > >> Hello Eric, >> >> Sqlbox selects query uses limit 0,1 where it is selecting only one row at >> a time. So running one more instance on the same database may duplicate the >> record. Does it make sense to change the limit value and recompile sqlbox, >> but I doubt this may not delete the row with relative sqlbox_id after >> selecting. >> On Jul 16, 2012 8:35 PM, "Eric Turner" <e...@txtwire.com> wrote: >> >>> I have never done it but I would guess that all you would need to do is >>> create a separate instance of sqlbox either on the same computer or >>> a separate computer what points to the same bearerbox. >>> >>> Not sure if it is possible. Not sure how smart sqlbox is with two >>> sqlboxes reading out of the same table. If it isn't that smart you could >>> have two sqlboxes pointing at the same bearerbox but reading from different >>> tables and you make your application smart enough to put half of the >>> messages in one table and half in the other table. That >>> should theoretically work get two sqlboxes feeding the same bearerbox. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Ashish Agarwal <ashisha...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Eric, >>>> >>>> I think adding another sqlbox is a good option but how can I add >>>> another sqlbox? >>>> On Jul 16, 2012 6:37 PM, "Eric Turner" <e...@txtwire.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Since it is compiled code. You could either look through the source >>>>> code and see where you could make improvements or you could add a second >>>>> sqlbox. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Ashish Agarwal >>>>> <ashisha...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> With sqlbox I have around 15,00,000 number of record in send_sms >>>>>> table and bearerbox is sending sms at approximately 200 to 300 TPS, but >>>>>> bearerbox with my smsc has much higher capacity to submit sms to smsc >>>>>> around 400 to 500 TPS but since sqlbox is not able to send too many sms >>>>>> to >>>>>> the store of bearerbox at a time I am not able to achieve good throughput >>>>>> with my smsc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore, is there a way wherein sqlbox can read messages from >>>>>> send_sms table at a very high speed so that message can be stored in >>>>>> queue >>>>>> and my smsc connections can be utilize to the maximum. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please suggest. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ashish Agarwal >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >
