Re: smppbox bulk sms: slow reception from a client

You didn't understand me. I asked about the performance penalty in the 
queued patch, and what was responsible for it, because i couldn't see it. 
You don't have a dict for stored_acks in there.

That's the other patch, which I agree it is faster with immediate acks. But 
even there, it is not the dict the problem,  it is a hash table after all, 
but the round-trip you are doing to get the ack.

BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rene Kluwen" <[email protected]>
To: "'Nikos Balkanas'" <[email protected]>; "'Hillel Bilman'" 
<[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:27 AM
Subject: RE: smppbox bulk sms: slow reception from a client


>I think that if I profile, the bottle neck will be the dict that I use to
> store acks. But not 100% sure.
>
> == Rene
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nikos Balkanas [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, 22 August, 2010 23:25
> To: Rene Kluwen; 'Hillel Bilman'
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: smppbox bulk sms: slow reception from a client
>
> Let's see. On one hand you have a serial design, on the other a
> multithreaded one. OK, not exactly multithreaded, but queued which will 
> get
> you ~80% of a true multithreaded design. Which one is faster, and more
> robust under heavy traffic?
>
> How much of a delay are you talking about? Any idea what is the offending
> call(s)?
>
> BR,
> Nikos
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Rene Kluwen" <[email protected]>
> To: "'Hillel Bilman'" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 9:15 PM
> Subject: RE: smppbox bulk sms: slow reception from a client
>
>
>>I knew this wasn't a good idea. The overall performance is a lot slower
>>now.
>>
>> Please find attached an smppbox implementation including queues (patch to
>> svn trunk).
>>
>> I am myself -1 for this patch. But here you have it, for the ones that
>> want
>> to try.
>>
>> == Rene
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hillel Bilman [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Sunday, 22 August, 2010 18:59
>> To: [email protected]
>> Cc: [email protected]
>> Subject: RE: smppbox bulk sms: slow reception from a client
>>
>> Thanks for the update and to Chimit for smppbox in general.
>>
>> To take up the discussion from the user group, you mentioned a great idea
>> to
>> have another set of queues that smppbox only uses.
>> To add to this, it would be great to have the same set of queues where 
>> you
>> can set priority and range 0-3 is allowed.  Then this prevents your
>> smppbox
>> flooding bearer box and also you can far more easily isolate problems 
>> from
>> smppbox.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>