Bruno David Rodrigues kirjoittaa keskiviikkona, 12. kes�kuuta 2002, kello 12:22:
Yes, it indeed seems that this code can use some rewriting :( Does Paul's suggestion met your big file needs (let us plan better this time). Aarno >> 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..... >
