Can fakesmpp help? The test wouldn't be isolated, which would be ideal, but
I need to implement an ESME client for that. But maybe it could show in:
fakesmpp <- bb1 <- smppbox <- bb2 <- fakesmpp
You will need to feed fake smpp with a copy of bb1's configuration, but with
smsbox-port set to bb2.
If not, let me know and I will add support for smppbox.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rene Kluwen" <[email protected]>
To: "'Nikos Balkanas'" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 2:41 PM
Subject: RE: Open smppbox queues -> priority queues
Before, I could not test properly. Just got my office system & Internet
connection back yesterday, since we've moved to another place.
Testing via a GSM Internet link is not quite ideal :)...
So I've got to think of some kind of bench mark (ideas?) to compare the
different implementations with.
== Rene
-----Original Message-----
From: Nikos Balkanas [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, 25 August, 2010 00:53
To: Rene Kluwen; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Open smppbox queues -> priority queues
Hi Rene,
I am really confused here. I am still waiting for an answer. Are queues
slowing down performance or not? If yes by what amount? Priority queues
are
the real hogger, especially the larger they get. I don't think that this
is
necessary, since they are prioritized in bb. I think since they are such a
performance degradation, they shouldn't be implemented more than once.
Lastly consider that if you put priority queues in smppbox, there will
always be people thinking that they do not work the way they are supposed
to
;-)
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message -----
From: Rene Kluwen
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:00 PM
Subject: Open smppbox queues -> priority queues
Here again another patch, which uses priority queues.
Looking for a way to come up with representative performance figures so we
can decide which implementation is best.
== Rene
