Re: Kannel low throughput and high smsc queue though TPS unlimited at Telco

Hi, try with sqlbox we are using kannel with 4gb and 1 core processor it's provide us upto 150-200 TPS thanks On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Daniel wrote: > Hi All, > > I have been having serious queuing on my SMSC binds. > > The telco operator indicates that they

Re: Reseller panel for Kannel.

Can you please provide demo? On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Web Services wrote: > Hi, > > if you looking for an custom development with kannel contact > www.jtegroup.net > > skype : jtegroup > > thanks > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Alaa Al Omari

RE: Kannel low throughput and high smsc queue though TPS unlimited at Telco

Thanks Vangelis for the prompt response. I tried that before but it didn't make any difference. BTW, is there a default value for the throughput if its not set. Also could you elaborate of this 'Setup max-pending-submits in base of the smpp latency with your operator.' , I already setup

RE: Kannel low throughput and high smsc queue though TPS unlimited at Telco

Throughput is defined with *throughput* parameter in your smsc bind definition (is missing from your configuration). Setup max-pending-submits in base of the smpp latency with your operator. Regards, Vangelis From: Web Services Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Re: Kannel low throughput and high smsc queue though TPS unlimited at Telco

Thanks for the suggestion. Could you possible share a sample config please. Thanks -- View this message in context: http://kannel.6189.n7.nabble.com/Kannel-low-throughput-and-high-smsc-queue-though-TPS-unlimited-at-Telco-tp32682p32686.html Sent from the Kannel - User mailing list archive at

Re: Kannel low throughput and high smsc queue though TPS unlimited at Telco

By definition Telcos almost (always) limit the tps binding, and the reason is that they pay licenses fee base in TPS to the smpp hardware provider. If you have 2tps by binding and have 40 smpp binding to the telco then you have 80 tps in total. The reason of the long queue it could be the retry