Re: Kannel not load balancing after restart and messages get stuckinqueue

Hi Milan,

Please edit gw/bb_smsccconn.c and go to smsc2_start:

 for (i = 0; i < gwlist_len(smsc_groups) &&.
        (grp = gwlist_get(smsc_groups, i)) != NULL; i++) {
        conn = smscconn_create(grp, 1);.
        if (conn == NULL)
            panic(0, "Cannot start with SMSC connection failing");
        gwlist_append(smsc_list, conn);
    }

That's panic. That's what I am talking about.

I didn't write these rules, and l am sorry, I don't have the time to 
continue this debate.

BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Milan P. Stanic" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Kannel not load balancing after restart and messages get 
stuckinqueue


> On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 14:32, Nikos Balkanas wrote:
>> I happen to agree also. But the fact is, that this is how kannel
>> currently works. And i have to abide by that. Anyway, read my response to
>> Alvaro, it may be just a configuration issue.
>
> I'm not sure if we are talking about same behavior of bearerbox but as
> I see it, bearerbox in 1.4.3 version (and some previous) starts and
> stays even if no one smsc (smsbox can't connect to SMSC) is running or in
> online status.
>
> If you talk about some specific configuration (smsc routing or load
> balancing) then you might be right. I didn't tested such use cases.
>
> Or, I misunderstood your post totally.
>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan McNatty" <[email protected]>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Cc: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:23 PM
>> Subject: Re: Kannel not load balancing after restart and messages get
>> stuck inqueue
>>
>>
>>> Milan P. Stanic wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 10:02, Nikos Balkanas wrote:
>>>>> I must be the one thanking you for the discussion. You see I am a wap
>>>>> guy, and don't know of many of the issues that sms people face.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only concern is at startup. After it has bbox has started
>>>>> succesfully, and therefore sms_router, started as well, it doesn't
>>>>> matter. You can take all the smscs you want offline to service them.
>>>>> sms_router will work with the rest of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only issue is for startup. I cannot test the scenario you 
>>>>> describe,
>>>>> because i don't have real smsc connections. However, if both 
>>>>> connections
>>>>> are active the minute kannel starts (1st case0, there should be no
>>>>> problem. In the second case, the unavailable smsc should be
>>>>> commented out
>>>>> the configuration.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess the only question is: Under what circumstances bbox will 
>>>>> start,
>>>>> if the 2nd smsc is not responding?
>>>>
>>>> Bearerbox should always start. Even if there is no one smsc active.
>>>> Smsc can become active later for miscellaneous reasons.
>>>>
>>> I agree 100% with Milan here. SMSC's are not in our control - there
>>> could be many points of failure between kannel and SMSC. Firewalls,
>>> VPN's etc may be unhappy and we lose connectivity .. we need kannel to
>>> be stable (in operation and restart, etc) and manage the reconnect and
>>> message distribution (SMPP is pretty good here).
>>>
>>> As Alvaro was suggesting earlier in the thread some sort of dynamic
>>> redistribution of queued message (maybe like keepalived or sim.) could
>>> be ideal .. but obviously some work ..
>>>
>>> Nikos I appreciate you have been busy doing some development. I can help
>>> test some of the SMSC 'stuff' (from SMPP) perspective - it's obviously
>>> in my interest here ;). As of now I haven't used a-lot of the routing
>>> features so this is a bit new to me (I will try and get back into it and
>>> hopefully make some suggestions).
>
> -- 
> Kind regards,  Milan
>