Just some more precisions : 

 

MySQL is on the same server, and I didn’t notice some connection problem at 
this time.

Anyway, with dlr-storage = internal, the problem is the same… So I don’t think 
MySQL is the first point to check.

 

I checked with a fakesmsc connection, but provided by my operator. I’ll try to 
check with kannel-integrated fakesmsc.

 

Nikos : the SMS is really delivered (in my case) because DLR are sent before 
the submit_sm_resp ;-)

And the problem is just that my stats are false after that, and the dlr-queue 
will non-stop increase.

 

Kannel version : Kannel bearerbox version `cvs-20090928'. Build `Sep 28 2009 
21:27:20',

 

About the patch : seems to be essential, and probably to be integrated in cvs, 
but how an SMSC-operator can send DLR before submit_sm_resp ?

 

I will give you more information as soon as I have… 

Thanks for your pieces of advice.

 

BR

Nicolas

 

De : Nikos Balkanas [mailto:[email protected]] 
Envoyé : samedi 24 octobre 2009 22:14
À : Alejandro Guerrieri
Cc : Alvaro Cornejo; Nicolas Dagnet; [email protected]
Objet : Re: Strange behaviour handling DLR

 

Wow! Talking about delivery faster than the speed of light! It should ran 
backwards in time :-)

 

Is the SMS actually delivered to the destination mobile while submit_sm_resp is 
still pending?

 

Timestamps would really help clear if this is the case.

 

In your patch there is a thread delay while implementing this sleep. I've 
noticed that you wake up when you receive something from the thread, but it 
could be another PDU for another SMS, not necessarily the submit_sm_resp you 
are waiting. Are these PDUs routed correctly? Given that there is a single 
thread for each smsc connection, is there a performance penalty to the thread?

 

Your patch seems essential, why it was not incorporated in the CVS?

 

BR,

Nikos

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Alejandro Guerrieri <mailto:[email protected]>  

To: Nikos Balkanas <mailto:[email protected]>  

Cc: Alvaro <mailto:[email protected]>  Cornejo ; Nicolas 
<mailto:[email protected]>  Dagnet ; [email protected] 

Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 6:11 PM

Subject: Re: Strange behaviour handling DLR

 

We had that very same problem. It happened to us with some aggregators: on some 
cases, they've sent the DLR _before_ the submit_sm_resp arrived, so when the 
DLR hits kannel the record is not yet created on the DB and it's ignored. 

 

When the submit_sm_resp finally arrives and the DLR record is created (only a 
few milliseconds later usually) it remains there forever. 

 

I've made a simple patch time ago to deal with this problem (posted it to the 
list as well).

 

Check here:

 

http://www.blogalex.com/archives/132

 

I've been using it since then with no issues at all.

 

Regards,

 

Alejandro

2009/10/24 Nikos Balkanas <[email protected]>

Hi,

This is rather a question for Mysql administration. If inserts (same server or 
LAN) delay more than WAN tcp/ip + delivery from your SMSc, then you have some 
serious MySQL issues.

However, you are only guessing about the cause. It could be something entirely 
different, i.e. Mysql downtime when inserting, dropped connections, etc. To 
verify your hypothesis, do a query after a few minutes and if the insert is 
slow, mismatched DLRs should still be in the database (status 0). If you also 
add a column with a timestamp, you could compare timestamp with DLR delivery 
from logs.

I have just submitted a patch that increases database warning logging, which 
might be helpful.

To benchmark your mysql installation, run the same 20K SMS over fakesmsc. It is 
expeted to loose a few there, since DLRs are instantaneous, but it should give 
you an idea of your handling capacity.

BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alvaro Cornejo" <[email protected]>
To: "Nicolas Dagnet" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: Strange behaviour handling DLR 




It is/(was?) a known issue. Some time ago there were a thread about it
but couldΞ„nt remember the final.

Search the mailing list.

It might be a issue with an overloaded mysql also.

In any case, post your configs/version/logs

Regards

Alvaro

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Nicolas Dagnet <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello,

I have a very strange behavior when dealing with sending a 20k SMS campaign
(for example).
Sometimes, DLR are stuck in MySQL, even if these DLR are really sent by my
operator (Mblox).

In fact, it seems that the DLR are incoming before kannel has enough time to
insert the DLR in MySQL (see log below).

I tried with dlr-storage = internal, but the situation is equal.
Number of SMS concerned : about 0.3 to 0.6% in the few tests I made.

Does anyone had to deal with such a problem ?

Thanks

Log :
Here is a dump for a DLR stuck in DB :

2009-10-23 13:29:04 [2399] [7] DEBUG: data: 69 64 3a 32 32 34 30 34 32
33 36 36 35 20 73 75 id:2240423665 su
2009-10-23 13:29:04 [2399] [7] DEBUG: DLR[mysql]: Looking for DLR
smsc=smppft, ts=2240423665, dst=33679261445, type=4
2009-10-23 13:29:04 [2399] [7] ERROR: SMPP[smppft]: got DLR but could not
find message or was not interested in it id<2240423665> dst<33679261445>,
type<4>
2009-10-23 13:29:05 [2399] [7] DEBUG: data: 69 64 3a 32 32 34 30 34 32
33 36 36 35 20 73 75 id:2240423665 su
2009-10-23 13:29:05 [2399] [7] DEBUG: DLR[mysql]: Looking for DLR
smsc=smppft, ts=2240423665, dst=33679261445, type=1
2009-10-23 13:29:05 [2399] [7] ERROR: SMPP[smppft]: got DLR but could not
find message or was not interested in it id<2240423665> dst<33679261445>,
type<1>
2009-10-23 13:29:06 [2399] [8] DEBUG: DLR[mysql]: Adding DLR smsc=smppft,
ts=2240423665, src=13579, dst=33679261445, mask=31, boxc=










-- 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

EnvΞ½e y Reciba Datos y mensajes de Texto (SMS) hacia y desde cualquier
celular y Nextel
en el Perϊ, Mιxico y en mas de 180 paises. Use aplicaciones 2 vias via 


SMS y GPRS online
Β  Β  Β  Β  Β  Β  Visitenos en www.perusms.NET www.smsglobal.com.mx y
www.pravcom.com 

 

Reply via email to