OK, then, please rewrite all C and sockets and start your own college...Assuming of course that all bearerbox instances live on the same server... ----- Original Message ----- From: Elton Hoxha To: Nikos Balkanas Cc: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:10 AM Subject: Re: smsbox not starting
Its totally possible....all 4 conf files used by 4 bearerboxes have the same admin-port 13000 and the routing of SMS through different SMPP connections is done without problems. My problem consisted only at sms-box error message that I couldnt understand but I suspect it was because one old smsbox process was still alive not killed. 2009/4/17 Nikos Balkanas <[email protected]> Hi, That's not possible. It contradicts all socket theory. Besides, when you access through HTTP tcp 13000, which one of the boxes are you administering? Just assign different admin port to each one. You cannot disable it. Nikos ----- Original Message ----- From: Elton Hoxha To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 4:51 PM Subject: Re: smsbox not starting In theory it can be right what you said Milan, but practically I have started multiple bearerbox instances running on the admin-port 13000 without having problems for weeks :) On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Milan P. Stanic <[email protected]> wrote: On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 15:00, Elton Hoxha wrote: > Actually I use 4 bearerbox instances separating my connections. I never had > this type of error even using this configuration below. Interesting idea :). But it is useless (at least) and can lead to problems. Actually, that can be cause of your problem. First instance of bearerbox binds to port 13000 and other instances cannot bind and "bark" to log files. > group = core > admin-port = 13000 > smsbox-port = 13010 > sendsms-port = 13015 > > group = core > admin-port = 13000 > smsbox-port = 13020 > sendsms-port = 13016 > > group = core > admin-port = 13000 > smsbox-port = 13030 > sendsms-port = 13017 > > group = core > admin-port = 13000 > smsbox-port = 13040 > sendsms-port = 13018 > > By the way, is logical the above? -- Kind regards, Milan
