Re: Please have a look at this patch adding option to configure SMPP throttling sleep time

Too much fuss. Is all this justifiable? Is this so essential that we cannot 
live without? Consider the burden on the code. Kannel is already sluggish as 
it is.

BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Martin Conte Mac Donell" <[email protected]>
To: "Michael Zervakis" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: Please have a look at this patch adding option to configure 
SMPP throttling sleep time


> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Michael Zervakis <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
>> I believe that this parameter should be set optimally at msec and not sec 
>> to
>> handle throttling rates such as 100 messages per sec., because for each
>> second we sleep after receiving 0x58 we lose the opportunity to transfer
>> these 100 messages, and transmission rate is reduced significantly.
>
> Maybe the "optimal" solution here is (starting for
> SMPP_THROTTLING_MIN_TIME) increase that delay with some sort of
> exponential growth until you reach the max defined value.
>
> M
>