Yes, I support all operators. Majority of them over STK, a few over SMS. On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 1:29:42 AM UTC+5:30, MaxX wrote: > > 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/-/8TUAOgrmhOUJ. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
