|Subject:||Re: Is Indy right for me?|
|Posted by:||Jason Southwell (jas…@southwell.net)|
|Date:||Wed, 1 Jun 2005|
> Basically, the server needs to handle multiple connections in real
> time, accurately and quickly. In my development system (IE my
> basement) I'll be able to test it on a smaller scale, but when it
> goes live, it'll need to handle several thousand connections.
That should be no problem for Indy.
> I've done some serious reading on the various newsgroups about the
> pros and cons between using TCP and UDP for the low level
> communictions (and got tons of conflicting information in both ways)
> but really not certain which way to go.
UDP is much faster than TCP, but is not gauranteed delivery and does
not maintain a "connection" with the server. TCP is more convienient
and stable delivery mechanism. It really depends what you are doing.
If you have time sensitive information to send that must be "real-time"
or as close to it as possible, then use UDP, but beware that your
packets might not ever make it to the other machine. On a non-busy LAN
environment, this is hardly ever an issue though.
> I know UDP is inheriently unreliable, but it's a popular choice among
> gaming servers. Does Indy have some sort of method of "reliable UDP"?
> Is this something I should even be working with; that is just go with
If you want to be theoretical about it, TCP is reliable UDP. Once you
start adding reliability to the mix, you might as well go with TCP as
UDP won't be any faster.
Delphi & IntraWeb Components
Consulting and Contracting
Incident Based Support
Is Indy right for me? posted by Max Norris on Tue, 31 May 2005