True. As I already stated earlier, I think the best setup is the way it is now already. So in that way, I agree with you.
The queues that I implemented are for academic purposes. Some people on the list reported bad performance. So I wanted to check if other implementations (i.e. with queues) give better performance results. == Rene From: Alexander Malysh [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alexander Malysh Sent: Wednesday, 25 August, 2010 13:56 To: Rene Kluwen Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Open smppbox queues -> priority queues Hi Rene, as I already said, I don't think you need any queue. bearerbox implements already queuing for you. And with queuing you have to wait for ack anyway because you may not be able to handle temp. nacks with DLR approach. Thanks, Alexander Malysh Am 24.08.2010 um 17:00 schrieb Rene Kluwen: 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 <smppbox_prioqueues_2.patch>
