SQLBOX is way faster for bulk traffic. On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:48 AM, Rene Kluwen <rene.klu...@chimit.nl> wrote:
> Unless your database is on another server. > > Sqlbox keeps a tcp connection open to bearerbox. > > If you use smsbox, you need to connect each time you send an sms. > > I don’t have hard figures though. It will be interesting to know them. > > > > > > *From:* users [mailto:users-boun...@kannel.org] *On Behalf Of *Tapan > Kumar Thapa > *Sent:* woensdag 22 april 2015 7:43 > *To:* Alberto Mijares > *Cc:* kannel users@kannel.org > *Subject:* Re: Fastest method to insert a million MT messages to Kannel > > > > Also while sqlbox is doing its operations with DB like select from > send_sms,submit to bearerbox and than inserting the same to sent_sms table > and doing delete from send_sms, it will add some time lag and will put load > on server too. > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Tapan Kumar Thapa < > tapan.thapa2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My 2 cents: > > > > Adding messages to send_sms table is not an issue. We can add messages to > send_sms table very quickly however once sqlbox is submitting those > messages to bearerbox, and if beaerebox is unable to submit the same to > upstream smsc at desired speed (because upstream smsc is not taking > messages at provided speed, (Many factor involves here like hardware > capacity, internet bandwidth)) then we will have huge queue at beaerebox > level, which actually slow down the overall performance of kannel. > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Alberto Mijares <amijar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I'd say: with the propper DB and DBI (PostgrSQL + Perl DBI, ie), using > PREPARE and COMMIT, SQLBox is your best bet by far. > > Regards, > > > Alberto Mijares > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Makhanu Sinja <jeysi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Well last week The same issue was raised on another thread in this > > mailing list. Let us consider the amount of time sqlbox has to do > > database CRUD for 1M messages compared to using spool or files. Is > > there anyone who has worked with both? > > > > On 4/21/15, Rene Kluwen <rene.klu...@chimit.nl> wrote: > >> 1. > >> I think Kannel does support Keep-Alive connections. Not sure about the > >> server side, but I think it does. Just make sure your client also > supports > >> it. > >> > >> 2. > >> Yes, probably SQL Box does insert 1,000,000 a lot faster than you can > do by > >> http. Question is if your upstream providers handle such a rate. You > will > >> end up with a lot of pending messages in the bearerbox queue. > >> > >> == Rene > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: users [mailto:users-boun...@kannel.org] On Behalf Of Cliff Court > >> Sent: dinsdag 21 april 2015 10:11 > >> To: users@kannel.org > >> Subject: Fastest method to insert a million MT messages to Kannel > >> > >> Hi All > >> > >> I have set up Kannel with bearerbox and smsbox, which is working and I > am > >> writing dlr's to a mysql db. > >> > >> Currently I am submitting messages using a sendsms GET or xml-based > POST, as > >> per the Kannel documentation. However, using individual http GET or > POSTs > >> for each message is relatively slow when needing to send a large volume > of > >> messages. Let's assume I have a 100 msgs/sec connection to an external > SMSC > >> using SMPP from bearerbox, which will take ~3 hours to send 1 million MT > >> messages. > >> > >> So my question is what is the fastest method to submit messages to > bearerbox > >> to send a million MT messages? > >> > >> I have seen that SQLbox is available and that one can insert messages > into > >> the send_sms table for faster submission, but I'm wondering what is the > >> fastest method of submission to bearerbox? > >> > >> Thanks > >> Cliff > > > > >
