Hi, am also facing the same problem as Ankur. I configured the throughput 
variable in the config file
like this: throughput = 1, but the SMSC receive msg at a rate of about 
3msg/sec. The only difference is that
am testing this with 'FAKESMSC' in Kannel, not a real one. Should it make a 
difference?

Thanks in advance

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stipe Tolj
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:12 AM
To: Ankur Bhatnagar
Cc: Kannel Users
Subject: Re: throughput parameter not working


Ankur Bhatnagar wrote:
> 
> Apparently, this is a common problem faced by many users. In spite of 
> searching the list archive, I could not get a clear direction. So I am 
> posting it here.
> 
> My SMSC can take messages up to the rate of 7 msg/sec but my gateway 
> (Kannel
> 1.4) sends the messages at approximate rate of 30 msg/sec. I tried setting:
> 
> throughput = 7 msg /sec
> 
> But this setting doesn't seem to have any effect at all. The 
> throughput is not reduced. Do I need to set some parameters?

did you enter the config directive that way? including the "7 msg /sec" as 
value? If yes, this won't work.

If you have 'throughput = 7' this should be working working.

Please do:

a) use cvs version
b) post the debug log level that shows us how fast Kannel tries to send 
messages 
towards the SMSC.

Stipe

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kölner Landstrasse 419
40589 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany

tolj.org system architecture      Kannel Software Foundation (KSF)
http://www.tolj.org/              http://www.kannel.org/

mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org           mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: 2/9/2006
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: 2/9/2006
 

Reply via email to