The file spool store writes, reads and deletes a large number of small files in rapid succession, which is very inefficient in journaled file systems. You can increase the performance of the file store by using a separate partition formatted as ext2. You don’t need a lot of space, a few gigs are usually plenty to store your in-flight messages.
Regards, -- Alejandro Guerrieri > On Oct 19, 2019, at 14:27, Jeff Thorn <j...@thorntechnologies.com> wrote: > > > I've notice this in the past as well. In our case it seems to occur when we > send a large number of messages in "batch A" which causes messages to queue > in the local file store. We use the kannel status monitor web interface quite > often. When this occurs, the status page shows the number of queued messages > increasing. At the same time, the sending rate of outgoing MT messages goes > down. My guess is that kannel is spending more time writing to disk vs > sending directly to the smsc. > > When "batch B" starts, it appears that some of these messages are sent > immediately instead of being cached in the local file store, which would > resemble the LIFO scenario you described. > > I've been very curious about the logic kannel implements to decide when to > cache messages locally and when not to. > > For what it's worth, this started happening less frequently for us when we > began using redis for the dlr store. It is much faster than the mysql db we > where using. Now this doesn't happen until we exceed 400 messages per second > on a single kannel server. When we load balance multie kannel instances, we > can reach nearly 1000 messages per second before this occurs. > > Hope this helps. Maybe someone can elaborate on that local caching logic. > > Jeff Thorn > CEO > Thorn Technologies, LLC > https://www.thorntech.com > >> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 12:15 PM Rene Kluwen <rene.klu...@chimit.nl> wrote: >> Your observaction is a bit “odd” in the sense that by nature, Kannel should >> send messages FIFO. >> >> >> >> The smpp smsc handles things differently as it takes the priority field into >> account. The http smsc does not. >> >> >> >> Apart from that SMS in general is store-and-forward and a particular order >> is not guaranteed so you cannot rely and that either. Even though that >> wasn’t your question. >> >> >> >> You can consider this as a background – I know it’s not a definitive answer, >> but maybe it helps. >> >> >> >> == Rene >> >> >> >> >> >> Van: users <users-boun...@kannel.org> Namens Louis Rouxel >> Verzonden: zaterdag 19 oktober 2019 16:06 >> Aan: users@kannel.org >> Onderwerp: Kannel delivering MT in LIFO >> >> >> >> Hello there, >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm currently having issues with Kannel delivering MTs in LIFO (last in >> first out) priority mode. >> >> >> >> I'm using Kannel 1.4.4 and filesystem directory spool storage (Debian >> jessie, ext4). >> >> >> >> I'm submitting large amounts of messages (let's call them "batch A)" for via >> cgi-bin/sendsms http endpoint; they all get ingested in the store. >> >> >> >> One hour later, some messages are still in queue, and I'm submitting a large >> amount of another message (let's call them "batch B"), the same way. >> >> >> >> Both messages are sent without any priority defined. >> >> >> >> >> >> What I'm observing, in such situations, is that delivery of messages from >> batch A are interrupted when batch B starts, Kannel is now only delivering >> messages from batch B. >> >> Deliveries for batch A will only resume when batch B is finished. >> >> >> >> I've been trying to understand if Kannel "officially" working in LIFO or >> FIFO, but can't really get a proper understanding. >> >> >> >> 9 years ago, Nikos seemed to indicate the queue should work in FIFO >> >> https://www.kannel.org/pipermail/users/2010-July/011951.html >> >> >> >> But that's really not what I'm observing. >> >> Also, I found someone suggesting a patch to make Kannel work in FIFO instead >> of LIFO (that would confirm my supposition) >> >> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37461349/kannel-queue-type >> >> >> >> But unfortunately this does not get a lot of attention, and I'm not very >> comfortable changing the source code as I have no experience in C. >> >> >> >> >> >> What do you guys think? >> >> Can anyone confirm if Kannel is operating in LIFO and the behaviour I'm >> observing is normal? >> >> Would anyone have a recommendation to achieve a FIFO behaviour without >> taking too many risks? >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks a lot, >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Louis
