Re: Shutdown of smsbox

fred wrote:

> There is still a window of oportunity for the smsbox to service sendsms
> requests with Sent! before shutting.
> 
> lol the "If you do kill  bearerbox twice in a row"
> why is that ?, very usually I need to issue 2 shutdown commands before it
> seems to want to shutdown. (but not always)
> I have implemented further checking of bb_status  in various loops,
> and created a shutdown admin msg to send to smsbox.
> 
> However, It is still not completely satisfactory yet.
> 
> Killing smsbox first may be a answer, but its manual work to
> hunt out the processid, issue a kill command etc etc...
> Fred

I'd sum up to this:

I agree that on a high-loaded system while doing a "normal" Kannel shutdown, 
means signaling SIGTERM to bearerbox, and hence passing an admin msg from 
bearerbox to smsbox requesting smsbox to terminate, there is a "opportunity 
window" (while threads are still active) that the HTTP server module accepts 
HTTP reuqests, they are processed and queued in the internal gwlist struct for 
the upstream (bearerbox).

So, we either need to make that queue persistant, aka store-file, spool-dir 
usage, or as a first punch, make sure we handle the internal thread shutdown 
logic in smsbox that way that we garantee that

1) HTTP accept is stopped
2) queue towards bearerbox is emptied by bearerbox
3) shutdown of the rest

Means we need to garantee that any MTs that are currently in smsbox's scope are 
passed to bearerbox at least before we say "good night".

Thanks Georg for point this out clearly ;) also to Fred for his forensical 
analysis ;)

Stipe

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kölner Landstrasse 419
40589 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany

tolj.org system architecture      Kannel Software Foundation (KSF)
http://www.tolj.org/              http://www.kannel.org/

mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org           mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------