At 05:56 PM 7/4/01 +0300, Kalle Marjola wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Frederik Ammitzb�ll wrote:
>
>complicated and not yet ready - it is called 'merging bearerbox and
>smsbox', which have a list of advantages (easier to make that no messages
>are lost, faster roundtrip time, faster overall speed...) - honestly, how
>many have run more than one smsbox (not counting tests)
We will be!
Merging bearer and smsboxes sure does have a number of advantages; But, I
think that the current architecture is sound. The split between We are
shortly going live with a distributed (globally) implementation of Kannel.
We will be using multiple SMS boxes, some even running on their own machines.
There is a possible bottle neck when one uses Kannel to act as a SMS
service provider. Ones customers are connecting to SMSbox (say through some
proprietary api (via dedicated software) or through the SMS box http
interface. If they (the customers) run slowly (due to software, hardware
or global network issues) the SMSbox will get slow and maybe even slower
than the bearerbox(s). Running multiple SMSboxes could help alleviate this.
Yes SMSBox threads, but Apache most likely does the http stuff better.
And while on the topic of SMS box; I have often wondered why it hasnt been
or wasnt implemented as an Apache module. One immediately has a very fast
multi process (yes apache forks) soon to be multithreaded webserver.
It has decent user authentication, it is probably used by most who use
Kannel in a web environment, along with PHP and MySql it makes for a
stunning dev and deployment environment, mmm.. I could rant on.
Nisan
