On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 09:39, Aarno Syv�nen wrote: > Paul Keogh kirjoittaa tiistaina, 4. kes�kuuta 2002, kello 14:51: > > > Yes, but when this is triggered bb_smscconn_receive () logs the event > > and > > returns -1. All the SMSC drivers except HTTP ignore the return code from > > bb_smscconn_receive (). Therefore, the message is silently dropped from > > the application and the SMSC point of view. This is IMHO a bad thing and > > not something you could use in a production environment. I think a > > better solution would be to; > > > > * When possible, map the queue full event to an SMSC protocol error > > indicating a temporary resource shortage; otherwise fail the message > > with the most appropriate error code. > > > > * Introduce a flow control admin. message to tell the SMS box (and any > > other > > clients using the SMS box interface) to stop/start sending messages. > > The SMS > > box could in turn signal to the various sendsms applications that a > > temporary > > resource shortage event has occurred (HTTP 503 maybe ?) > > > > * Use high and low watermark variables instead of maximum-queue-length. > > This prevents > > thrashing around the maximum-queue-length value. A sort of SMS > > hysteresis curve :-). > > Maximum-queue-length is supposed to prevent crashing caused by too long > queues. > Congestion control is used to *prevent* long queues. It is, of course, > something Kannel > can use. > > Aarno
I've been looking at the code and I can't find what I've been looking for :((( On May 3, as I told you, I've sent 200k messages through emi2 (30msg/sec I think). On that day I've tryed my post-xml code. As 100k per post gave me http timeout, I've send 10k at a time, 20 posts. At the end, I've lost 25% of the messages (smsbox logs vs bearerbox logs). Could it be from this code ? I did got store.lock with 30 or 40 MB. As I saw in the code, even if this code is activated, we get a DROPPED in logs, right ? I didn't care much at the time, but there's somewhere a bug looking for us.....
