You might want to use sqlbox for that:

- Adjust sqlbox to bb throughput to the total allowed by your
operator, (patch to sqlbox might be needed... Alex?)
- Configure allow/denied/preferred as needed on each smsc
- Do not add throtling per smsc
- Let kannel do the loadbalancing by itself. It will send mts to the
available smsc.

Didn't try it but should work... try, come back and share results ;-)

Hope helps

Alvaro

|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Envíe y Reciba Datos y mensajes de Texto (SMS) hacia y desde cualquier
celular y Nextel
en el Perú, México y en mas de 180 paises. Use aplicaciones 2 vias via
SMS y GPRS online
              Visitenos en www.perusms.NET www.smsglobal.com.mx y
www.pravcom.com



On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:22 AM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
> No, sadly there's no way to overcome that, kannel can only limit per smsc
> connection.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex
>
> BlackBerry de movistar, allí donde estés está tu oficin@
>
> ________________________________
> From: Konstantin Vayner <[email protected]>
> Sender: [email protected]
> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:11:05 +0300
> To: Kannel Users<[email protected]>
> Subject: throughput per smsc group?
> Hi all,
> We have some operator providing us with one user account and one throughput
> limitation, but allowing to connect simultaneously to several server with
> the same account
> On their side, the throughput is that of combined traffic we create
> But as we need to limit the amount we send out via each smsc separately,
> this means each of the connections has 1/Nth of the total throughput (in
> this specific case - half).
> This is all nice - until one of the remote servers goes down (either for
> scheduled maintenance or as a result of a failure). When this happens we
> lose a portion of our allowed speed just because of the configuration on our
> side.
> Is there a way to set throughput for a group of connections rather than each
> single one of them?
> Regards,
>   Konstantin
>
>

Reply via email to