Alex
If so, why if I have a runing kannel with all smsc's up (modems) and
one of them died/get locked and restart kannel it will panic and the
config haven't changed ?
If do nothing I get a "reconnecting" status on kannel and all other
smsc's continue to work normally. I can even disconnect the modem and
replace it and kannel will reenable the smsc. Kannel will continue to
work properly. Also I can shutdown/up the smsc wih no problem.
The panic occurs if I do reset kannel with a locked or disconnected modem.
Regards
Alvaro
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Envíe y Reciba Datos y mensajes de Texto (SMS) hacia y desde cualquier
celular y Nextel
en el Perú, México y en mas de 180 paises. Use aplicaciones 2 vias via
SMS y GPRS online
Visitenos en www.perusms.NET www.smsglobal.com.mx y
www.pravcom.com
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Alexander Malysh<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Nikos,
>
> this panic is reached only if SMSC module has wrong configuration.
> This panic has nothing todo with active/offline/not connected SMSCs.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> Am 10.06.2009 um 14:32 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:
>
>> Hi Milan,
>>
>> Please edit gw/bb_smsccconn.c and go to smsc2_start:
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < gwlist_len(smsc_groups) &&.
>> (grp = gwlist_get(smsc_groups, i)) != NULL; i++) {
>> conn = smscconn_create(grp, 1);.
>> if (conn == NULL)
>> panic(0, "Cannot start with SMSC connection failing");
>> gwlist_append(smsc_list, conn);
>> }
>>
>> That's panic. That's what I am talking about.
>>
>> I didn't write these rules, and l am sorry, I don't have the time to
>> continue this debate.
>>
>> BR,
>> Nikos
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Milan P. Stanic" <[email protected]>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: Kannel not load balancing after restart and messages get
>> stuckinqueue
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 14:32, Nikos Balkanas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I happen to agree also. But the fact is, that this is how kannel
>>>> currently works. And i have to abide by that. Anyway, read my response
>>>> to
>>>> Alvaro, it may be just a configuration issue.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if we are talking about same behavior of bearerbox but as
>>> I see it, bearerbox in 1.4.3 version (and some previous) starts and
>>> stays even if no one smsc (smsbox can't connect to SMSC) is running or in
>>> online status.
>>>
>>> If you talk about some specific configuration (smsc routing or load
>>> balancing) then you might be right. I didn't tested such use cases.
>>>
>>> Or, I misunderstood your post totally.
>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan McNatty" <[email protected]>
>>>> To: <[email protected]>
>>>> Cc: <[email protected]>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:23 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Kannel not load balancing after restart and messages get
>>>> stuck inqueue
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Milan P. Stanic wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 10:02, Nikos Balkanas wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I must be the one thanking you for the discussion. You see I am a wap
>>>>>>> guy, and don't know of many of the issues that sms people face.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only concern is at startup. After it has bbox has started
>>>>>>> succesfully, and therefore sms_router, started as well, it doesn't
>>>>>>> matter. You can take all the smscs you want offline to service them.
>>>>>>> sms_router will work with the rest of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only issue is for startup. I cannot test the scenario you
>>>>>>> describe,
>>>>>>> because i don't have real smsc connections. However, if both
>>>>>>> connections
>>>>>>> are active the minute kannel starts (1st case0, there should be no
>>>>>>> problem. In the second case, the unavailable smsc should be
>>>>>>> commented out
>>>>>>> the configuration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess the only question is: Under what circumstances bbox will
>>>>>>> start,
>>>>>>> if the 2nd smsc is not responding?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bearerbox should always start. Even if there is no one smsc active.
>>>>>> Smsc can become active later for miscellaneous reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree 100% with Milan here. SMSC's are not in our control - there
>>>>> could be many points of failure between kannel and SMSC. Firewalls,
>>>>> VPN's etc may be unhappy and we lose connectivity .. we need kannel to
>>>>> be stable (in operation and restart, etc) and manage the reconnect and
>>>>> message distribution (SMPP is pretty good here).
>>>>>
>>>>> As Alvaro was suggesting earlier in the thread some sort of dynamic
>>>>> redistribution of queued message (maybe like keepalived or sim.) could
>>>>> be ideal .. but obviously some work ..
>>>>>
>>>>> Nikos I appreciate you have been busy doing some development. I can
>>>>> help
>>>>> test some of the SMSC 'stuff' (from SMPP) perspective - it's obviously
>>>>> in my interest here ;). As of now I haven't used a-lot of the routing
>>>>> features so this is a bit new to me (I will try and get back into it
>>>>> and
>>>>> hopefully make some suggestions).
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kind regards, Milan
>>
>>
>
>
>
