Hi, That's correct. If you want load balancing in your application (MTs), you need to implement that in your application, it is not a kannel issue.
A lot of SMScs will allow more than 1 active connections from the same user, each one with each own throughput. This would be ideal. However, you can always use a load balancer (this can be a simple Linux box) to the SMSc connection, and split SMScs between those 2. Then you could have the load balancer tell bearerbox to reload the SMSc configuration file - I believe Alex G's patch will do just that, and reassign SMScs to the remaining bearerbox if the other fails. BR, Nikos ----- Original Message ----- From: Konstantin Vayner To: Illimar Reinbusch Cc: Kannel Users Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:11 AM Subject: Re: scaling bearerbox Yeah, but this doesnt really solve the problem for MT messages - as in this case an external application needs to load balance the throughput instead of Kannel. And if i'm limited in speed (and i am) , neither bearerbox will know how many messages has another one sent so far... On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Illimar Reinbusch <[email protected]> wrote: Β Hi Does Kannel architecture allow scaling bearerbox in any way? Right now i have kannel running on one machine and a second machine standing by to take over (by heartbeat) in case of the first machine failure. But thats only redundancy. I see that i can create a lot of smsboxes to connect to one bearerbox, but this still leaves me with a single potential bottleneck since all the connections to the operators are made from one process. I have resolved this problem by opening 2/4/6 connections to operator, Β so i have 1 SMSC/1 Bearerbox/ 1 smsbox on one server and 1 SMSC/1 Bearerbox/ 1 smsbox on second server. If one server fails, then all messages will come thru second connection, during normal operation both connections work and i have load-balancing scenario. Illimar
