Hi Everybody..
I have a project to use AT commands in a CT65 Arm7 Siemens/Centurium modem.
It will be used as GSM for data transmission. Programming will be
impllemented using C/C++.
Could someone tell if it is feasible to use Kannel in this kind of
development?
Thanks.
ThreaderSlash
Hi
Kannel already has support for AT commands for sending/receiving sms
as well as modem initialization.
What exactly want you to do?
Regards
Alvaro
|-|
Envíe y Reciba Datos y
Hi,
It certainly is feasible. Kannel supports all serial GSM modems, as well as
usb based, as long as suitable usb driver exists for them in the OS.
BR,
Nikos
- Original Message -
From: Threader Slash
To: Alvaro Cornejo
Cc: users@kannel.org
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 9:02 PM
Hi,
Something looks off from your description. Have you checked bb access.log
timestamps, and they verify this delay?
If yes, please post detailed relevant bb logs of your errors to see if they
could be responsible. Does this happen with sms or just some? Tried sending
acouple to yourself
Hi,
It is unlikely that kannel is your bottleneck. It can handle ~1000 MO/s, 750
MT/s (internal DLRs) or 450 MT/s (DB DLRs). Compare that to 10-30 sms/s
throughput of most SMScs. If you still want a fater kannel try:
1) Make sure that you have the right indeces in your DB. Some DBs are
2010/8/13 Nikos Balkanas nbalka...@gmail.com:
It is unlikely that kannel is your bottleneck. It can handle ~1000 MO/s, 750
MT/s (internal DLRs) or 450 MT/s (DB DLRs).
Just curious to know where do you get those values from...
What Kannel supports depends on your hardware and architecture
Ok, just saw on another thread where you got those values from, but
again, that's very system specific.
I guess you point was just to say that Kannel was not the issue for
his bottleneck, but saying It can handle ~1000 MO/s, 750 MT/s
(internal DLRs) or 450 MT/s (DB DLRs) may give the wrong
You can use throughput directive :)
Beware of your telco policy, some telcos limit MT from us ;)
sangprabv
sangpr...@gmail.com
http://www.petitiononline.com/froyo/
On Aug 14, 2010, at 1:33 AM, Ravindra Gupta // Viva wrote:
Dear Team,
Sorry for previous mail.
I am using kannel 1.4.3
Actually you're wrong.
You would use the throughput directive if you want to restrict your throughput.
If you don't want to restrict it then you should not set it at all
(but you may receive throttling errors form the remote SMSC)
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 1:42 AM, sangprabv sangpr...@gmail.com
Actually you have missed a couple of more emails. On fakesmpp submission I
also posted results from a low-end Solaris 10 64bit box. Very similar to the
results posted from the linux server. The averages seem pretty solid. So,
contrary to your beliefs, it is not giving out the wrong impression.
So you're saying that on any server and/or architecture the results
will be the same?
Doesn't seem very reasonable...
2010/8/14 Nikos Balkanas nbalka...@gmail.com:
Actually you have missed a couple of more emails. On fakesmpp submission I
also posted results from a low-end Solaris 10 64bit
11 matches
Mail list logo
