Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Differences of SMS gateway services: A performance analysis of two communication platforms implemented on an infrastructure based on ASP.NET Core 6
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.
2022 (English)Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

Background: When we use our phone to make a purchase, booking, or simply contact someone, we expect a quick response to acknowledge that our request has been sent and received. Today’s traffic requests are higher than ever, and will most likely continue to grow. This puts pressure on the communication platforms to keep up with the demand and continue to perform and deliver the requests within short time frames. Twilio and 46elks are two communication platforms that offer an SMS gateway service, and this thesis will take a deeper look at how they perform when implemented on an ASP.NET Core 6 web application. 

Objectives: The goal of this thesis is to evaluate if there are any disparities or similarities between the two communication platform’s SMS gateway services regarding performance. The performance quality attributes are focused on time behaviour, CPU utilization, and RAM usage.

Method: Comparing two communication platforms by using a quasi-experiment. A web application was developed with ASP.NET Core 6 to handle incoming SMS bookings. With the provided data from the SMS, it created and stored the booking. Once done, a confirmation SMS was delivered to the Sender. The performance quality attributes were stored and collected for evaluation of each incoming SMS during the experiments.

Results: Overall, Twilio had a longer time behaviour and higher RAM usage compared to 46elks, but Twilio had a lower CPU utilization compared to 46elks.

Conclusions: The time behaviour and CPU utilization between the two communication platforms were significant different. Interesting findings were that when injecting a higher workload on the web application, the performance improved in two quality attributes, RAM usage and time behaviour, for both communication platforms.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2022. , p. 61
Keywords [en]
sms gateway, performance, Twilio, 46elks
National Category
Computer Systems Telecommunications
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-23078OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-23078DiVA, id: diva2:1666573
Subject / course
PA1445 Kandidatkurs i Programvaruteknik
Educational program
PAGPT Software Engineering
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2022-06-17 Created: 2022-06-09 Last updated: 2022-06-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

Differences of SMS gateway services. A performance analysis of two communication platforms implemented on an infrastructure based on ASP.NET Core 6.(1313 kB)189 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1313 kBChecksum SHA-512
f7669999e6021d3284b1af9260816066d0bbecdecb114a78822c9b9fdecd3ee74e03a016fe8b6c79e0437f546a368a01d85f791e6c82211f48b01f54fb65edbd
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
Department of Software Engineering
Computer SystemsTelecommunications

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 189 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 390 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf