Yes....that is exactly what I meant. Thanks Jason. I only set receive-port=0 on one of the transmitter binds as a test anyway. The others do not have that, but do have transceiver-mode = 0.
In the PDU debug log, I am seeing a few occasional "got DLR but could not find message or was not interested in it" ERRORS but I don't think this is related. I am getting < 20 of these errors for over 3,000,000 DLRs received today. So I am not too concerned about these. The errors I am talking about "Window on receiver full" are not occurring in my logs. They are being reported to me by the SMSC operator. It is occurring on their end. Regardless, here is an excerpt of the PDU log that shows this error. Let me know if you want to see anything else. Thanks! 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: Optional parameter length read as 1 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: SMPP[s-send-1]: Got PDU: 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: SMPP PDU 0x2aaaadaf3fc0 dump: 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: type_name: deliver_sm 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: command_id: 5 = 0x00000005 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: command_status: 0 = 0x00000000 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: sequence_number: 3355750 = 0x00333466 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: service_type: "CMT" 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: source_addr_ton: 2 = 0x00000002 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: source_addr_npi: 1 = 0x00000001 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: source_addr: "XXXXXXXXXXX" 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: dest_addr_ton: 2 = 0x00000002 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: dest_addr_npi: 1 = 0x00000001 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: destination_addr: "XXXXX" 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: esm_class: 4 = 0x00000004 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: protocol_id: 0 = 0x00000000 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: priority_flag: 0 = 0x00000000 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: schedule_delivery_time: NULL 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: validity_period: NULL 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: registered_delivery: 0 = 0x00000000 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: replace_if_present_flag: 0 = 0x00000000 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: data_coding: 0 = 0x00000000 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: sm_default_msg_id: 0 = 0x00000000 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: sm_length: 122 = 0x0000007a 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: short_message: 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: Octet string at 0x2aaaad657550: 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: len: 122 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: size: 123 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: immutable: 0 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: data: 69 64 3a 30 35 37 31 36 34 30 39 31 39 20 73 75 id:0571640919 su 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: data: 62 3a 30 30 31 20 64 6c 76 72 64 3a 30 30 31 20 b:001 dlvrd:001 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: data: 73 75 62 6d 69 74 20 64 61 74 65 3a 31 33 31 31 submit date:1311 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: data: 32 37 30 30 31 30 20 64 6f 6e 65 20 64 61 74 65 270010 done date 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: data: 3a 31 33 31 31 32 37 30 30 31 30 20 73 74 61 74 :1311270010 stat 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: data: 3a 44 45 4c 49 56 52 44 20 65 72 72 3a 30 30 30 :DELIVRD err:000 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: data: 20 74 65 78 74 3a 50 6c 65 61 73 65 20 6e 6f 74 text:Please not 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: data: 65 20 74 68 61 74 20 77 65 20 e that we 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: Octet string dump ends. 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: message_state: 2 = 0x00000002 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: receipted_message_id: "22128c57" 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: SMPP PDU dump ends. 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: SMPP[s-send-1] handle_pdu, got DLR 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: DLR[mysql]: Looking for DLR smsc=s-send-1, ts=571640919, dst=XXXXXXXXXXX, type=1 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: sql: SELECT `mask`, `service`, `url`, `source`, `destination`, `boxc` FROM `dlr` WHERE `smsc`=? AND `ts`=? LIMIT 1 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: column=mask buffer_type=3 max_length=0 length=10 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: column=service buffer_type=253 max_length=0 length=40 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: column=url buffer_type=253 max_length=0 length=255 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: column=source buffer_type=253 max_length=0 length=40 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: column=destination buffer_type=253 max_length=0 length=40 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: column=boxc buffer_type=253 max_length=0 length=40 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] WARNING: DLR[mysql]: DLR from SMSC<s-send-1> for DST<XXXXXXXXXXX> not found. 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] ERROR: SMPP[s-send-1]: got DLR but could not find message or was not interested in it id<571640919> dst<XXXXXXXXXXX>, type<1> 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: SMPP[s-send-1]: Sending PDU: 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: SMPP PDU 0x2aaaaf7bfe20 dump: 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: type_name: deliver_sm_resp 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: command_id: 2147483653 = 0x80000005 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: command_status: 0 = 0x00000000 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: sequence_number: 3355750 = 0x00333466 2013-11-27 00:10:04 [18849] [19] DEBUG: message_id: NULL On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Jason Mule <jason.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think he meant that he set receive-port = 0 on transmitters only and > he only expects DLRs to come through on receiver binds. For some > reason, he's getting DLRs on transmitter binds as well. > > Are you able to post your PDU logs? Just the sections with DLRs. > > On 27 November 2013 22:32, spameden <spame...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Most likely that's because you set receiver-port = 0. > > > > > > Check your smsc log as well and post here any errors you find. > > > > > > 2013/11/27 Jeff Thorn <j...@thorntechnologies.com> > >> > >> The SMSC Operator said they were getting "Window on receiver link full" > >> errors from us when trying to send DLRs. Is that possible? > >> > >> We are not using sqlbox and we do have the dlr table indexed. I will > >> confirm the version of kannel. > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:52 PM, spameden <spame...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 2013/11/27 Jeff Thorn <j...@thorntechnologies.com> > >>>> > >>>> I see. So does that mean the the DLRs I am seeing on the transmit > binds > >>>> are only status 8s? Would the volume of 8 messages impact the sending > of > >>>> other status from the SMSC? I am trying to understand the cause of > the error > >>>> from the operator "Window on receiver link full". > >>> > >>> > >>> "Window on receiver" means your sending rate is much higher than your > >>> operator allows you to. > >>> > >>> max-pending-submits - basically means "the window" - the number of > >>> submit_sm's without response. > >>> also there is throughput parameter which controls the actual number of > >>> submit_sm's per second (acknowledged). > >>> > >>> well, volume of DLR=8 is equal to number of MT's you're pushing. > >>> > >>> but kannel receives DLR=8 from bearerbox not the SMSC operator. > >>> > >>> do you use sqlbox at all? also try adding an index on dlr table > (smsc_id, > >>> ts). > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I appreciate your help with this. We are definitely doing a > considerable > >>>> volume. We do report the status of 8s. So I am thinking I may need to > tune > >>>> the mysql dlr database. > >>> > >>> > >>> Most likely, try sending same amount of MTs without DLR and using > >>> internal kannel storage. > >>> > >>> Btw, what's the kannel version you're on? Better use latest revision > from > >>> SVN, it's considered to be production stable. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:32 PM, spameden <spame...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 2013/11/27 Jeff Thorn <j...@thorntechnologies.com> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The documentation says to set receive-port = 0 to disable I/O on > this > >>>>>> bind. I tested this on the one sample config I posted and it had no > effect. > >>>>>> Our other binds look like this and they too are receiving DLRs. > What should > >>>>>> be changed to make this a "pure transmitter bind"? Will DLRs be > received on > >>>>>> pure transmitter binds? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> That's correct. As I said before status=8 kannel sends DLR itself to > >>>>> report that submit_sm was accepted. So if you don't want status=8 > you need > >>>>> to use appropriate dlr_mask, i.e. dlr_mask=1+2+16=19 (for rejected > messages, > >>>>> delivered, and failed). > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> group = smsc > >>>>>> smsc = smpp > >>>>>> smsc-id = s-send-1 > >>>>>> smsc-admin-id = s-send-2 > >>>>>> throughput = 150 > >>>>>> transceiver-mode = 0 > >>>>>> host = xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx > >>>>>> port = 17800 > >>>>>> smsc-username = "xxxxxx" > >>>>>> smsc-password = xxxxx > >>>>>> system-type = "" > >>>>>> address-range = "" > >>>>>> source-addr-ton = 2 > >>>>>> source-addr-npi = 1 > >>>>>> dest-addr-ton = 2 > >>>>>> dest-addr-npi = 1 > >>>>>> enquire-link-interval = 30 > >>>>>> msg-id-type = 0x03 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Jason Mule <jason.m...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> First of all, to bind in pure transmitter mode do not set > >>>>>>> receive-port. After this you should have 6 pure transmit binds and > 4 pure > >>>>>>> receiver binds. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2013 8:15 PM, "Jeff Thorn" <j...@thorntechnologies.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks for the response. In my scenario, we want to be able to > send > >>>>>>>> as fast as possible. We are regularly submitting MTs at a rate of > 200 / > >>>>>>>> second. We get DLRs at a rate of 1.5 - 2 times this (300 - 400 / > second). > >>>>>>>> This makes sense to me since we get multiple DLRs for every MT > (status > >>>>>>>> 8,4,1). We do need the DLRs for reporting purposes. Our > architecture was > >>>>>>>> just not setup to process them at the rate we are receiving them. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The apache server that hosts our dlr.php says it is receiving > >>>>>>>> requests at a rate of 30 / second. The kannel status page says > we are > >>>>>>>> receiving DLRs at a rate of 300 / second. I cannot figure out > where the > >>>>>>>> bottleneck is. The apache status page shows idle worker threads. > So I do not > >>>>>>>> think that is the bottleneck. Is smsbox not sending to our dlr > url as fast > >>>>>>>> as it is receiving them from the smsc? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:57 AM, spameden <spame...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You can control DLR via dlr_mask parameter, if its unset you > won't > >>>>>>>>> receive any DLRs. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> About speed - it's strange for me that speed of DLRs is much > higher > >>>>>>>>> than MT submit speed. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Don't think there is any algorhythm implemented to control > inbound > >>>>>>>>> information coming, you might turn into transmitter mode, thus > it should > >>>>>>>>> stop receiving DLRs. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2013/11/27 Jeff Thorn <j...@thorntechnologies.com> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It looks like setting receive-port=0 has no effect on DLRs. Is > >>>>>>>>>> there any way to control which binds receive DLRs or to somehow > control how > >>>>>>>>>> fast they are received? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Jeff Thorn > >>>>>>>>>> <j...@thorntechnologies.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> If we are getting DRs faster than we can process them, I assume > >>>>>>>>>>> if we reduce the number of receive binds the rate that we get > DRs would go > >>>>>>>>>>> down. Is this generally true? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> We have a total of 10 binds setup - the desired design is to > have > >>>>>>>>>>> 6 transmit binds for sending MTs and 4 receive binds for > accepting MOs and > >>>>>>>>>>> Deliver Receipts. However, it appears that all 10 of our binds > are receiving > >>>>>>>>>>> Delivery Receipts. The SMSC is reporting several "Windows on > receiver links > >>>>>>>>>>> full" errors. I assume this is because they are sending DRs > faster than we > >>>>>>>>>>> are able to process them. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I tried setting receive-port = 0 on one of our transmit binds. > >>>>>>>>>>> However, we still seem to be receiving DRs on this bind. Here > the config for > >>>>>>>>>>> this bind. Am I missing something? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> group = smsc > >>>>>>>>>>> smsc = smpp > >>>>>>>>>>> smsc-id = s-send-1 > >>>>>>>>>>> smsc-admin-id = send-1 > >>>>>>>>>>> throughput = 60 > >>>>>>>>>>> host = xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx > >>>>>>>>>>> port = 17800 > >>>>>>>>>>> receive-port = 0 > >>>>>>>>>>> smsc-username = "xxxxxxx" > >>>>>>>>>>> smsc-password = xxxxxxx > >>>>>>>>>>> system-type = "" > >>>>>>>>>>> address-range = "" > >>>>>>>>>>> source-addr-ton = 2 > >>>>>>>>>>> source-addr-npi = 1 > >>>>>>>>>>> dest-addr-ton = 2 > >>>>>>>>>>> dest-addr-npi = 1 > >>>>>>>>>>> enquire-link-interval = 30 > >>>>>>>>>>> msg-id-type = 0x03 > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I appreciate any help on this issue. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Jeff > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Jeff Thorn > >>>>>>>>>>> <j...@thorntechnologies.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Group, > >>>>>>>>>>>> We are receiving DLRs from the SMSC faster than we can process > >>>>>>>>>>>> them. Our setup is supposed to have 6 transmit binds and 4 > receive binds. > >>>>>>>>>>>> However, I just looked at status page showing all our binds > and it looks > >>>>>>>>>>>> like all 10 of our binds are receiving DLRs and they are > coming in at a rate > >>>>>>>>>>>> greater than 250 / second. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> If I set the "receive-port" setting to 0 on our transmit > binds, > >>>>>>>>>>>> will I stop receiving DLRs on these binds? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> If this reduces the number of binds that can receive DLRs, > >>>>>>>>>>>> should the rate they are received go down? Or is that totally > dependent upon > >>>>>>>>>>>> the SMSC? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything I can control in my config that would reduce > >>>>>>>>>>>> the rate they are received or is that something only the SMSC > can control? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Jeff Thorn > >> Principal Software Architect > >> Thorn Technologies, LLC > >> (410) 429-0255 > >> www.thorntech.com > >> @thorntech | LinkedIn | Facebook > > > > > > > > -- > Jason Mule > -- Jeff Thorn Principal Software Architect Thorn Technologies, LLC (410) 429-0255 www.thorntech.com @thorntech <http://twitter.com/thorntech> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffthorn> | Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/thorntechnologies>
