There is still a window of oportunity for the smsbox to service sendsms requests with Sent! before shutting.
lol the "If you do kill bearerbox twice in a row" why is that ?, very usually I need to issue 2 shutdown commands before it seems to want to shutdown. (but not always) I have implemented further checking of bb_status in various loops, and created a shutdown admin msg to send to smsbox. However, It is still not completely satisfactory yet. Killing smsbox first may be a answer, but its manual work to hunt out the processid, issue a kill command etc etc... Fred ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Fink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Georg von Zezschwitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "devel Devel" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:42 AM Subject: Re: Shutdown of smsbox > If you do kill bearerbox twice in a row, SMSbox looses its > connection and kills itself pretty immediately. And when SMSbox gets > killed, then theres for sure no one to accept any http connections. > in other words, when you kill SMSBox first, there is no way any > messages will be delivered. > > > On 09.11.2006, at 02:07, Georg von Zezschwitz wrote: > > > Rodrigo Cremaschi schrieb: > >> Hi Georg, > >> > >> Maybe you already tried this: > >> > >> 1) Set Kannel to 'isolated' state. > >> 2) Set Kannel to 'suspended' state. > >> 3) Set Kannel to 'shutdown' state. > > > > Hi, thanks for this! > > > > However, I want to protect messages from the smsbox HTTP interface > > to be protected from getting lost, > > not from the SMSC (EMI) side. > > > > Both 'isolated' as well as 'suspended' will go on accepting new > > messages via HTTP / smsbox. > > In suspended mode, they even get dropped when terminating smsbox > > and bearerbox. > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Georg > >
