Re: [hylafax-users] batching almost there

["offman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <offman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jul 29, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Lee Howard wrote:

> offman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
> > The other question is about redials,  if we submit 4 faxes to the   
> > same destination & the same TTS , and if the first one hits a  
> > busy  signal, do the other 3 also try to call the busy number , or  
> > is the  software smarter than that, and puts them all for a re-try?
>
>
> It is smarter than that, yes.  It will reschedule them all for a  
> later attempt.  However, the rescheduled time will not likely be  
> the same for each, so (as the code now stands) they will not likely  
> all be batched on the next attempt.

In your previous  post you stated that the jobs would be re-submitted  
with a 'jitter', I assume that this "jitter" occurs because it is  
from the "current time" and the re-schedule time is added in to  
that ., as aposed to the resubmittal being  "TTS"+ re-schedule time.

what would be the effect of taking the  old "TTS"+ the reschedule  
time , and using that as the resubmit fire time?
 I would guess that this will put the jobs back into the re-try  
queue so they all fire at the same time ( if they were origionally  
all sent with the same TTS), that might negate the need to play about  
with  an admin agent, or is that likely to messup other users?
we might need a bit of logic  to check that the "old TTS+reschedule  
time" was not less that the current time, just incase it was running  
on a heavily loaded backlogged server, and if it was then just use  
the "current time"+re-schedule time.


> If you wanted them all batched again then you could 'faxalter -a  
> time' them all from an admin account to make sure they all try to  
> go together again.
>
>
> > lee, I'm not looking for something that is 100%, just budget   
> > reduction, and I'm not happy with what happened  at the start of  
> > this  thread.
> > and just for the record, I am down 1 staff member as of last monday.
>
>
> Well, it would seem, that I had misunderstood your batching needs  
> previously, and yes, batching seems to be designed exactly for your  
> purpose: to try to reduce the number of calls to the same  
> destination whenever possible.
>
> Before I made the fix for the race condition I had sincerely  
> believed that jobs scheduled for the same time-to-send would get  
> batched.  Apparently I had never tested it, though, and when I did  
> test it after the discussion with "Steve" began, I relized that  
> indeed there was something silly going on.  I'm glad that it's  
> working at least tolerably well for you now.  It's nice to know  
> that at least some people are making good use of this feature
> Thanks,
it's not the first time that this has happend, and it has caused  
problems with customers.
 The new office policy is no duplicate names in the office, last one  
in changes their  "given" name,... and no I'm not joking.


> Lee.



____________________ HylaFAX(tm) Users Mailing List _______________________
 To subscribe/unsubscribe, click http://lists.hylafax.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi
On UNIX: mail -s unsubscribe hylafax-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx < /dev/null
 *To learn about commercial HylaFAX(tm) support, mail sales@xxxxxxxxx*