What should be the smsbox-port value I should mention in my new sqlbox configuration. On Jul 19, 2012 6:27 PM, "Rene Kluwen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> There’s no absolute need for two smsboxes to be connected, as long as you > set your boxc_id to the smsbox that you have.**** > > Having said that, in your case, two smsboxes might improve speed as well.* > *** > > ** ** > > == Rene**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Ashish Agarwal [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 July, 2012 09:09 > *To:* Rene Kluwen > *Cc:* Eric Turner; spameden; users > *Subject:* Re: sqlbox select speed**** > > ** ** > > Hi Rene,**** > > ** ** > > Thanks for the response. I have configured two sqlboxes that are reading > from two different database and that has helped in increasing the overall > speed. I have not recompiled sqlbox with INSERT DELAY.**** > > > Also, I want an understanding whether if two smsboxes are also necessary > with two sqlboxes.**** > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Rene Kluwen <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > To shed some light in this matter.**** > > **** > > 1. You can increase the LIMIT without breaking things. This might > increase speed for large batches.**** > > 2. If you want to have 2 (or more) sqlboxes, they can connect to > the same bearerbox without any problem. But yes, use a separate send_sms > table for each instance.**** > > 3. Adding the DELAYED option to the INSERT query might help. If it > does help, please post to the list. Possibly we can add it to the SVN > version of sqlbox.**** > > 4. Maybe the problem is not sqlbox itself, but your MySQL that > takes too long to process your queries. This goes beyond the scope of this > mailinglist but it is worth checking. From experience I know that running > the mysql databases on a solid state disk increases speed significantly.** > ** > > **** > > **** > > == Rene**** > > **** > > **** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Eric Turner > *Sent:* Monday, 16 July, 2012 21:10 > *To:* spameden > *Cc:* users > *Subject:* Re: sqlbox select speed**** > > **** > > Sounds like it would be safer to have your application insert into two > different sqlbox tables and then have two different sqlbox instances feed > the same bearerbox.**** > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:07 AM, spameden <[email protected]> wrote:**** > > most likely you didn't optimize mysql > > most work sqlbox is being done on INSERT rather than SELECT and DELETE, > try using INSERT DELAYED instead of INSERT in SQLBOX_MYSQL_INSERT_QUERY in > gw/sqlbox_mysql.h or optimize your MySQL setup. > > try also to test kannel's speed without sqlbox involved at all without > database, might be a problem on your smsc operator side as well.**** > > ** ** > > 2012/7/16 Ashish Agarwal <[email protected]>**** > > Hello Eric,**** > > Sqlbox selects query uses limit 0,1 where it is selecting only one row at > a time. So running one more instance on the same database may duplicate the > record. Does it make sense to change the limit value and recompile sqlbox, > but I doubt this may not delete the row with relative sqlbox_id after > selecting. **** > > On Jul 16, 2012 8:35 PM, "Eric Turner" <[email protected]> wrote:**** > > I have never done it but I would guess that all you would need to do is > create a separate instance of sqlbox either on the same computer or > a separate computer what points to the same bearerbox. **** > > **** > > Not sure if it is possible. Not sure how smart sqlbox is with two > sqlboxes reading out of the same table. If it isn't that smart you could > have two sqlboxes pointing at the same bearerbox but reading from different > tables and you make your application smart enough to put half of the > messages in one table and half in the other table. That > should theoretically work get two sqlboxes feeding the same bearerbox.**** > > **** > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Ashish Agarwal <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > Hello Eric,**** > > I think adding another sqlbox is a good option but how can I add another > sqlbox?**** > > On Jul 16, 2012 6:37 PM, "Eric Turner" <[email protected]> wrote:**** > > Since it is compiled code. You could either look through the source code > and see where you could make improvements or you could add a second sqlbox. > **** > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Ashish Agarwal <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > Hello,**** > > **** > > With sqlbox I have around 15,00,000 number of record in send_sms table and > bearerbox is sending sms at approximately 200 to 300 TPS, but bearerbox > with my smsc has much higher capacity to submit sms to smsc around 400 to > 500 TPS but since sqlbox is not able to send too many sms to the store of > bearerbox at a time I am not able to achieve good throughput with my smsc. > **** > > **** > > Therefore, is there a way wherein sqlbox can read messages from send_sms > table at a very high speed so that message can be stored in queue and my > smsc connections can be utilize to the maximum. **** > > **** > > Please suggest. > **** > > **** > > -- > Regards, > > Ashish Agarwal**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > Regards, > > Ashish Agarwal**** >
