Re: EMI: Serious Problem PANIC: Too many concurrent allocations

Bruno David Rodrigues kirjoittaa keskiviikkona, 12. kesäkuuta 2002, 
kello 12:22:

Yes, it indeed seems that this code can use some rewriting :( Does 
Paul's suggestion
met your big file needs (let us plan better this time).

Aarno

>> Paul Keogh kirjoittaa tiistaina, 4. kesäkuuta 2002, kello 14:51:
>>
>>> Yes, but when this is triggered bb_smscconn_receive () logs the event
>>> and
>>> returns -1. All the SMSC drivers except HTTP ignore the return code 
>>> from
>>> bb_smscconn_receive (). Therefore, the message is silently dropped 
>>> from
>>> the application and the SMSC point of view. This is IMHO a bad thing 
>>> and
>>> not something you could use in a production environment. I think a
>>> better solution would be to;
>>>
>>> * When possible, map the queue full event to an SMSC protocol error
>>> indicating a temporary resource shortage; otherwise fail the message
>>> with the most appropriate error code.
>>>
>>> * Introduce a flow control admin. message to tell the SMS box (and any
>>> other
>>> clients using the SMS box interface) to stop/start sending messages.
>>> The SMS
>>> box could in turn signal to the various sendsms applications that a
>>> temporary
>>> resource shortage event has occurred (HTTP 503 maybe ?)
>>>
>>> * Use high and low watermark variables instead of 
>>> maximum-queue-length.
>>> This prevents
>>> thrashing around the maximum-queue-length value. A sort of SMS
>>> hysteresis curve :-).
>>
>> Maximum-queue-length is supposed to prevent crashing caused by too long
>> queues.
>> Congestion control is used to *prevent* long queues. It is, of course,
>> something Kannel
>> can use.
>>
>> Aarno
>
> I've been looking at the code and I can't find what I've been looking
> for :(((
>
> On May 3, as I told you, I've sent 200k messages through emi2 (30msg/sec
> I think).
>
> On that day I've tryed my post-xml code. As 100k per post gave me http
> timeout, I've send 10k at a time, 20 posts.
>
> At the end, I've lost 25% of the messages (smsbox logs vs bearerbox
> logs).
>
> Could it be from this code ? I did got store.lock with 30 or 40 MB.
> As I saw in the code, even if this code is activated, we get a
> DROPPED in logs, right ?
>
>
>
> I didn't care much at the time, but there's somewhere a bug looking for
> us.....
>