Re: [PATCH] Guaranteed throughput smsc-independent

Am 10.06.2009 um 17:16 schrieb Damian Viano:

> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 03:06:59PM +0200, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>> here is a link to throttling branch:
>> 	http://github.com/amalysh/kannel/tree/smpp-throttling
>> only smpp implemented for now.
>
> Great, thanks for the link.
>
> I see that you basically break out when you are over throughput[1],  
> I see your
> concern now, since the thread for receiving is the same as the  
> sender, so you
> just break out to keep processing incoming pdu. Makes sense, and  
> this indeed
> breaks my assumption that the smsc implementations would have a  
> thread for
> sending and another one for receiving.
>
> Unfortunately this is smsc-dependant, so maybe we could move this to  
> a more
> generic api, and make the rule that the SMSCs MUST check that api  
> (say...
> conn->over_throughput()?) and move the load setup/increase to the  
> already
> existing callbacks?.

I think, it's already enough abstracted in load object. Now it's SMSC  
dependent how to use it.
So I don't think we need more api there but I'm open for a patch that  
would make it easier to implement
this in other smsc modules.

>
> That way it's a bit more generic and we can implement
> conn->sleep_for_throughput() for the smsc that need their sender  
> thread to
> sleep, or let the others (i.e. smpp) handle it accordingly.
>
> Opinions about this approach?
>
> [1] I didn't check the load object but I assume it account for  
> load_increases
> in the set interval, which would make sense.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>
> Thanks your code, made your points a lot more clearer, I hope we can  
> come up
> with a better implementation of throughput for all kannel users.
>
>    Damián Viano(Des).