On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Alexander Malysh <[email protected]>wrote:
> just add store support to inmemory DLR and you are done... > but I'm --1 to keep DLRs in memory _and_ in storage. You choosed to use > external storage to keep > memory footprint low... > > If you say: I will keep DLRs in memory while DB not available then you > should start thread to check DB availability > and add DLRs to DB. What will you do if kannel will told to shutdown but > some DLRs still in memory and DB not available? > I don't like the idea of dual storage either. That could be interesting if you want to have some kind of cache in memory but in case you want to preserve data you need to write it anyway... I don't think the DLR would benefit much from this approach. In fact, my issue is simply that MySQL drops connections too fast for the usage Kannel gets (If I had a DLR to write every 5 sec I wouldn't have spot this issue). The reconnect could happen on a another server every 1h if it was not receiing much dlr. Since the wait_timeout is there in all MySQL instance and cannot be deactivated (It's just the value it's set at that change), maybe having a timer send a mysql_ping to maintain the connection is actually the valid fix... Basically it's adding an option to send keepalive through the mysql connection for Kannel, effectively turning this in a persistent connections, which would be valid since Kannel use only a controlled number of connections. This very much resemble the keep-alive on a SMPP connections (or any other type of keep-alive) so I don't see what is really wrong with this. I'm ready to hear other thought before I put my head into what could be needed to add this :) -- Math aka ROunofF [email protected]
