Well, I am glad I am not the only one with this idea ... Quick question: for recharge you do it via STK way ? I assume you do it for more than one operator .. All use STK recharge ?
On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:14:53 PM UTC+3, Nizam wrote: > > I use a separate-thread-per-gateway strategy and am able to get parallel > processing on my recharge transactions. I'm sure this will work for SMS as > well. I don't think connectivity has any affect on SMS sending performance. > > On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:38:12 PM UTC+5:30, MaxX wrote: >> >> I understood your post, but I was hoping maybe you experienced the >> difference ... >> >> However I will go for my idea with queue threads for each gateway that >> will send independently, each thread via it's own gateway as soon as the >> gateway is available >> >> From my tests I found out that the delay between SMS-es sent via >> different gateways is 1.5 - 3 seconds. I think at hardware level ( USB >> communication ) there is no way I could get that much delay. >> I'll post my results as soon as I'll implement it >> >> Regards. >> >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 6:13:16 PM UTC+3, Nizam wrote: >>> >>> Sorry, my post wasn't related to the performance question. It was in >>> response to your doubt regarding the 8 port modem connectivity. Avoid hubs >>> to improve the reliability of your solution. >>> >>> --Nizam >>> >>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:22:05 PM UTC+5:30, MaxX wrote: >>>> >>>> I am inserting the modems ( the 2 currently I have ) into a USB port >>>> each. I assume the modem contains some kind of USB to serial converter ... >>>> >>>> So I am not using a HUB but that's what the driver is being recognized by >>>> the OS >>>> >>>> I didn't have any port lockouts so far ... and I am using Linux ( >>>> CentOS 6.2 ) >>>> Still my question holds ... would serial modems make any difference in >>>> terms of performance ? >>>> Anyone had any experience with both ? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> MaxX >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:42:50 PM UTC+3, Nizam wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Serial-USB-Serial conversion is better avoided if possible. If going >>>>> for the USB option make sure you have enough USB ports on the server >>>>> itself >>>>> without having to introduce a USB hub. I've tried many hubs and all of >>>>> them >>>>> ended up causing frequent port lockups on Windows. >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:56:35 PM UTC+5:30, MaxX wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your answer ... >>>>>> >>>>>> I have 2 modems each one in an USB port >>>>>> i've been testing different setups with my USBs ports to try to find >>>>>> best setup. After your email I thougt that if I put them in different >>>>>> ports >>>>>> / motherboards hubs will make any difference. but it didn't >>>>>> >>>>>> 1st question that I have now is if serial modems will make any >>>>>> difference. I plan to buy a 8 port modem pool and I can't decide if to >>>>>> buy >>>>>> USB or RS232 ( via multiserial board ) >>>>>> >>>>>> 2nd one is actually an ideea ... to create a QueueManger thread for >>>>>> each gateway and eventually have 10 paralel threads for 10 modems ending >>>>>> with the possibility to send independently SMS via 2 modems (almost) at >>>>>> the >>>>>> same time >>>>>> >>>>>> Not sure how QueueManger is implemented now ... I'll dig into it >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Marius >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2012 12:06:19 PM UTC+3, T.Delenikas wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, I tried to find something (like a recent change in code, >>>>>>> perhaps) that could justify this, with no luck. >>>>>>> On the other hand, this issue has been reported again recently, so >>>>>>> something is really going on here... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The really bad thing is that I currently don't have access to a >>>>>>> multi-serial board in order to test things. >>>>>>> I've seen that USB hubs (or maybe their drivers?) sometimes appear >>>>>>> as if they lock concurrent port access. I am not the most appropriate >>>>>>> person to follow low-level specs and controller capabilities, but I've >>>>>>> seen >>>>>>> articles like this: >>>>>>> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1277379/recommendation-please-most-reliable-self-powered-7-port-usb-hub >>>>>>> >>>>>>> which suggest that low-level hubs may indeed have a problem allowing >>>>>>> concurrent access to all ports. I've seen terms like " *Supports 4 >>>>>>> Concurrent Non-periodic Transactions* ". I guess that all of these >>>>>>> references have something to do with the hub's ability to allow >>>>>>> concurrent >>>>>>> port access and how many individual controllers they have (i.e. ports >>>>>>> per >>>>>>> controller ration). Do you or anybody else know something about it??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Needless to say that such hubs have a cost of $50 - $100 + - check >>>>>>> this one: http://www.cooldrives.com/12poinusb20h.html and have >>>>>>> nothing to do with the $10 hubs found in every stupid accessory store... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:54:21 PM UTC+3, MaxX wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> modems via USB ... >>>>>>>> pl2303: Prolific PL2303 USB to serial adaptor driver >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SMSLib Discussion Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/smslib/-/UkFujQHVLOQJ. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
