On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 09:55:43AM +1000, Benjamin Lee wrote: > On Thursday, 2014-07-03 at 11:45:48 PM, Baptiste scribbled: > > [...] *snip* > > > > > Thanks ben for clarifying. > > Last question when we speak about load-balancing: does it need any > > kind of persistence?? > > > > Baptiste, well, it depends on our definition of "persistence". :-) > > If we consider persistence to be the requirement that multiple [0] > connections be routed to one common back-end server [1], then strictly > speaking, the SMPP protocol [2] is non-persistent; each SMPP connection is > completely independent and does not share any "state" with any other > connection. > > Cheers! :-) > Ben. > > [0] TCP or whatever > > [1] because there is common knowledge (e.g. session state) that needs to > be shared between multiple connections - yay for HTTP! - :-) > > [2] as I knew it, and how we used it
Thanks Ben for your detailed explanations. I agree that such long-lived connections have no room here. They could only complicate maintenance operations for example. Even ECMP hashing on the router or any such thing would probably be more suited! Cheers, Willy
