Re: [PATCH] Guaranteed throughput smsc-independent

Am 10.06.2009 um 16:40 schrieb Damian Viano:

> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 09:38:41AM +0200, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> not only this is issue. You want not sleep! Just think about it a  
>> bit.
>
> Sleeping was the current approach so I just followed it. I think the  
> idea
> behind that (and behind the code to ensure the sleeping time is  
> accomplished) is
> that the smsc have different threads for TX(MTs) and RX(MOs) so  
> making the TX
> thread sleep shouldn't be a problem, this might be a false assumption.

false assumption, TX and MX may running in one thread (e.g. SMPP v3.4  
transceiver mode).

>
>> Hint: you want to process MOs and ACKs without delays...
>> -1
>
> Could you point me to some code affected by this? And please don't  
> just tell me
> that the way throughput is currently implemented is wrong and  
> therefore the
> patch I made to fix the current implementation is also wrong.

see above..
and yes, current implementation is wrong. and why should we accept fix  
for a wrong version instead of
doing it right ?

>
> I'd really appreciate it, since I'm only trying to help by fixing a  
> problem. If
> the current (sleeping) approach is wrong, great, let's talk about it  
> and find
> another way to implement it better.

something like this:
http://github.com/amalysh/kannel/commit/31db912a9e5aecd6d9f038b56d09f408f2c256f9

>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>
>> P.S. I already posted patch that fixes this issue but not in ideal  
>> way.
>> SMSC will not sleep but sending
>> all allowed messages in the time slot at full speed instead of  
>> delaying
>> each message.
>
> Full speed? I'm not sure I get that point keeping in mind that if  
> you send for
> a 10 sms/s throughput, 20 sms in 1 second and then nothing for  
> another second,
> you still violated the throughput, as you sent 20sms/s.
>
> Thanks for your input on my patch, I appreciate it, and hope you  
> have time to
> further explain your points.
>
> Damián Viano(Des).