I need tips to build an infrastructe to send 1000 simultaneous voice calls (automated IVR calls with voicexml). Up to now i used asterisk with voiceglue but now i have performance issues.
The infrasturcture was like this:
the asterisk pulls request from queue
the queue consumer create a call file
when the call ends, call file is read and status is sent to the application server
To be honest, i am asking for tips to implement an infrastructure like callfire[1] or voxeo[2]?
[1]https://www.callfire.com/
[2]http://voxeo.com/
you can go with voxeo prophecy (http://voxeo.com/prophecy/) one of the good server which have the capability of making simultaneous voice calls
Note: The requirement which your are expecting to do will not only possible with voxeo prophecy it should also depend the web server like Tomcat, IIS e.t.c in case if you dealing with databases like Sql , Oracle e.t.c
Please do refer to know the architecture
http://www.alpensoftware.com/define_VoiceOverview.html
CallFire's API has a CreateBroadcast method where you can throw up an IVR using their XML in seconds. You can read up on the documentation here:
https://www.callfire.com/api-documentation/rest/version/1.1#!/broadcast
CallFire also offers a PHP-SDK, hosted on Github, with examples of how to do this. The SDK is minimal setup and allows you to easily tap into the APIs robust functionality. Version 1.1 can be found here, with instructions on how to get started: https://github.com/CallFire/CallFire-PHP-SDK
The method call might look something like this. Note the required dependencies.
<?php
use CallFire\Api\Rest\Request;
use CallFire\Api\Rest\Response;
require 'vendor/autoload.php';
$dialplan = <<<DIALPLAN
<dialplan><play type="tts">Congratulations! You have successfully configured a CallFire I V R.</play></dialplan>
DIALPLAN;
$client = CallFire\Api\Client::Rest("<api-login>", "<api-password>", "Broadcast");
$request = new Request\CreateBroadcast;
$request->setName('My CallFire Broadcast');
$request->setType('IVR');
$request->setFrom('15551231234'); // A valid Caller ID number
$request->setDialplanXml($dialplan);
$response = $client->CreateBroadcast($request);
$result = $client::response($response);
if($result instanceof Response\ResourceReference) {
// Success
}
You can read this:
http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Asterisk+auto-dial+out
Main tip: you WILL have ALOT of issues. If you are not expert with at least 5 years development experience with asterisk, you have use already developed dialling cores or hire guru. There are no opensource core that can do more then 300 calls on single server.
You can't do 1000 calls on single asterisk in app developed by "just nice developer". It will just not work.
Task of create dialling core for 1000 calls is "rocket science" type task. It require very special dialling core, very special server/server tunning and very specialized dialler with pre-planning.
1000 calls will result 23Mbit to 80Mbit bandwidth usage with SMALL packets, even that single fact can result you be banned on your hosting and require linux network stack be tunned.
You can use ICTBroadcast REST API to integerate your application with reknown autodialer , please visit following link for more detail
http://www.ictbroadcast.com/news/using-rest-api-integerate-ictbroadcast--third-party-application-autodialer
ICTBroadcast is based on asterisk communication engine
I've already done this for phone validation and for phone message broadcasting using Asterisk and Freeswitch. I would go with Freeswitch and xmlrpc:
https://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Freeswitch_XML-RPC
Related
I have 2 independent python 2 applications running in the same linux (ubuntu) computer.
I want to send messages from one to another (bidirectional) and receives these messages inside a callback function.
Is it possible? Do you have any example as reference?
Thanks
There are different options available for communicating between python apps.
A simple one would be to use an API based on HTTP. Each application will expose an specific port and communication takes place by exchanging HTTP requests.
There are several frameworks that allow you to build it in few steps. For example, using Bottle:
In app1:
from bottle import route, run, request
#route('/action_1', method='POST')
def action_1_handler():
data = request.json
print(str(data))
# Do something with data
return {'success': True, 'data': {'some_data': 1}}
run(host='localhost', port=8080)
In app2:
import requests
r = requests.post("http://localhost:8080/action_1", json={'v1': 123, 'v2': 'foo'})
print r.status_code
# 200
data = r.json()
# {u'data': {u'some_data': 1}, u'success': True}
Note that if the action executed at app1 after receiving the HTTP request takes lot of time, this could result in a timeout error. In such a case, consider to run the action in another thread or use an alternative communication protocol (e.g. sockets, ZeroMQ Messaging Library).
Some related reads:
Basic Python client socket example
Communication between two python scripts
https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-work-with-the-zeromq-messaging-library
Thank you for your assistance.
Question:
Why does my REST service seem to perform so poorly using rest interfaces in dlang vibe.d when compared to creating request handlers manually?
More Information:
I have been prototyping a RESTful service using the vibe.d library in dlang. I'm running a test where a client sends GET and POST requests to the server with a payload of some given size, say 2048 byte (i.e. the GET response would have 2k, the POST request would have 2k).
I'm using the "registerRestInterface" and "RestInterfaceClient" API in the vibe.d library to create my server and client sort of like this...
Server:
auto routes = new URLRouter;
registerRestInterface(routes, new ArtifactArchive());
auto settings = new HTTPServerSettings();
settings.port = port;
settings.bindAddresses = [host];
settings.options |= HTTPServerOption.distribute;
listenHTTP(settings, routes);
runEventLoop();
Client:
IArtifactArchive archive = new RestInterfaceClient!IArtifactArchive(endpoint)
IArtifactArchive.Payload result;
result = archive.getContents(info.FileDescriptor, offset, info.BlockSize);
I'm not doing anything fancy in my interface. Just filling a byte array and passing it along. I know performance depends on many different things; however I seem to see about 160kB transfer rate when using REST interfaces in vibe.d and roughly 5MB transfer rate when using manual http request handlers like this:
void ManualHandleRequest(HTTPServerRequest req, HTTPServerResponse res) ...
listenHTTP(settings, &ManualHandleRequest);
I really like the REST interface API, but I can't suffer that kind of performance loss in order to use it. Any thoughts on why it seems so much slower than the other method? Perhaps I'm configuring something wrong or missing something. I am somewhat new to the D programming language and the vibe.d library.
Thank you for your time!
I suspect that with custom request handler you actually write response as a byte array. REST interface generator serializes all return data into JSON by default which creates huge overhead compared to raw array.
This is just a random guess though, I need to see actual REST method implementation to say for sure and/or propose solution.
i want bulid faster webmail
i've built small webmail script based on ( php imap functions ( imap port connection ) )
but it take a long time to connect and get the mail ..
So, i decided to read the mail manually without connect ( by my own functions ) ..
i've built my own functions, that go to the ( user mails ) path, and then i use ( scandir function )
to get all mails in the folder, and then read/get them manually!
i'll show you an example code
<?
$current_folder = 'new';
$virtual_user = 'someone';
$path_to_mails = '/home/user/mail/' . $virtual_user . '/' . $current_folder;
$all_emails = scandir( $path_to_mails );
foreach ( $all_emails as $mail_file ) {
$file = file_get_contents ( $mail_file ) ;
//Now i've the mail file ..
//i'll explode it and extract the important information from it
}
?>
Now i got emails without connect to any port
i think it faster than the ( php imap functions ) ...
but it also take a long time to get and read the file!!
why gmail and yahoo is soooooooooooooooooooo faster??? may be they using database to store their webmail files?
NOW MY QUESTIONS IS
1 - is my own functions really faster than the php imap functions theoretically? ( may be i am wrong )
2 - ( Gmail , Yahoo , Hotmail ) where they storing their mail files? database or hard disk? they are so faster and
in the same time they allow you to connect to their server via imap and get your mails via php, that mean they using hard disk to store email files!!
or may be they use database and they customized their webmail softwares
3 - is there any way to customize the postfix, store the mails to database instant of the hard disk??
4 - tell me the best idea to build a faster and strong webmail system
PLEASE DO NOT IGNORE ANY OF THIS QUESTIONS
i am working on this project 3 months ago.. i've tired!
1 - Yes.
2 - Depends on the provider. I assume Yahoo and Hotmail might be using actual IMAP servers but I don't think they disclose their infrastructure.
3 - This does not relate to postfix. Postfix is just the MTA after all. It doesn't store the mails it just transfers them. So you can of course code your own database driven service. Daunting task ;)
4 - Build on existing tools. The easiest choice is to build on top of the Horde Webmail
Webmail is a daunting task. The small snippet of PHP code you showed is really light years away from reality if you consider the complexity of modern webmailers. If you really want something working you need to start with existing building blocks. Horde is the best option there because it is a development framework, provides efficient IMAP caching capabilities, a decent AJAX backend and so on. Nevertheless: Your own webmail service will remain a daunting task nevertheless.
I've been having some problems with the below code that I've pieced together. All the events work as advertised however, when a client drops off-line without first disconnecting the close event doesn't get call right away. If you give it a minute or so it will eventually get called. Also, I find if I continue to send data to the client it picks up a close event faster but never right away. Lastly, if the client gracefully disconnects, the end event is called just fine.
I understand this is related to the other listen events like upgrade and ondata.
I should also state that the client is an embedded device.
client http request:
GET /demo HTTP/1.1\r\n
Host: example.com\r\n
Upgrade: Websocket\r\n
Connection: Upgrade\r\n\r\n
//nodejs server (I'm using version 6.6)
var http = require('http');
var net = require('net');
var sys = require("util");
var srv = http.createServer(function (req, res){
});
srv.on('upgrade', function(req, socket, upgradeHead) {
socket.write('HTTP/1.1 101 Web Socket Protocol Handshake\r\n' +
'Upgrade: WebSocket\r\n' +
'Connection: Upgrade\r\n' +
'\r\n\r\n');
sys.puts('upgraded');
socket.ondata = function(data, start, end) {
socket.write(data.toString('utf8', start, end), 'utf8'); // echo back
};
socket.addListener('end', function () {
sys.puts('end'); //works fine
});
socket.addListener('close', function () {
sys.puts('close'); //eventually gets here
});
});
srv.listen(3400);
Can anyone suggest a solution to pickup an immediate close event? I am trying to keep this simple without use of modules. Thanks in advance.
close event will be called once TCP socket connection is closed by one or another end with few complications of rare cases when system "not realising" that socket been already closed, but this are rare cases. As WebSockets start from HTTP request server might just keep-alive till it timeouts the socket. That involves the delay.
In your case you are trying to perform handshake and then send data back and forth, but WebSockets are a bit more complex process than that.
The handshake process requires some security procedure to validate both ends (server and client) and it is HTTP compatible headers. But different draft versions supported by different platforms and browsers do implement it in a different manner so your implementation should take this in account as well and follow official documentation on WebSockets specification based on versions you need to support.
Then sending and receiving data via WebSockets is not pure string. Actual data sent over WebSockets protocol has data-framing layer, which involves adding header to each message you send. This header has details over message you sending, masking (from client to server), length and many other things. data-framing depends on version of WebSockets again, so implementations will vary slightly.
I would encourage to use existing libraries as they already implement everything you need in nice and clean manner, and have been used extensively across commercial projects.
As your client is embedded platform, and server I assume is node.js as well, it is easy to use same library on both ends.
Best suit here would be ws - actual pure WebSockets.
Socket.IO is not good for your case, as it is much more complex and heavy library that has multiple list of protocols support with fallbacks and have some abstraction that might be not what you are looking for.
The email addresses are stored in a database and the number of people to be emailed each day is variable. I'm not sure yet whether the emails would need to be sent individually or as a mass email. I want recommendations as to what language to use to do this and any other components necessary in a solution.
thanks
In this context, 1,000 people is a pretty small number. I probably wouldn't bother with a database, and I would do the whole thing with the scripting language of my choice (ksh or Lua, in either case piping output to sendmail. This is a very Unix-specific sort of solution.
One thing you may have to watch out for is to throttle the outgoing email—depending on your service provider, if you inject messages into the server at too high a rate, your IP address may be temporarily blacklisted. At home I tell postfix not to deliver more than 1 message per second to Verizon's server.
If I had to write platform-independent code, I would use the LuaSocket library to make a TCP connection directly with a SMTP server. They have a reasonably useful setup for building and sending RFC-compliant messages.
Here is a C# implementation for this:
System.Net.Mail.MailMessage message = new System.Net.Mail.MailMessage("from#address.com", "to#address.com", "subject", "body");
System.Net.Mail.SmtpClient client = new System.Net.Mail.SmtpClient("host.address.com", 1234);
client.Send(message);
Just about any modern language can do this. Java, C#, VB.NET, PHP, PERL, Python and many many more.
Sending emails is such a common requirement that most languages and frameworks support it natively.
As for the requirement of up to 1000 emails a day - that's not that many emails and the limiting factor will be limits imposed by an ISP most likely.
In short - use the language and platform you are most comfortable with and find out how email works in that.
As others have mentioned, it's easy to do this in just about any modern language. I'm a fan of Python, which features great scripting capabilities as well as a solid base for building applications. Python's library is well documented, and includes a number of sophisticated features (including the ability to do multipart MIME encoding).
This is from the examples:
# Import smtplib for the actual sending function
import smtplib
# Import the email modules we'll need
from email.mime.text import MIMEText
# Open a plain text file for reading. For this example, assume that
# the text file contains only ASCII characters.
fp = open(textfile, 'rb')
# Create a text/plain message
msg = MIMEText(fp.read())
fp.close()
# me == the sender's email address
# you == the recipient's email address
msg['Subject'] = 'The contents of %s' % textfile
msg['From'] = me
msg['To'] = you
# Send the message via our own SMTP server, but don't include the
# envelope header.
s = smtplib.SMTP()
s.sendmail(me, [you], msg.as_string())
s.quit()
I want recommendations as to what language to use to do this and any other components necessary in a solution
You can do this in whatever language you feel comfortable with. .NET has some nice stuff built in, and you can probably do it in less than 20 lines of code.