• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Distributed JamKazam Servers (Host) to improve performance
#5
Hans there is no evidence that this is a point to point network. The behavior of
This site strongly indicates that a “session” is hosted on
A Jamkazam server managed by Jamkazam. You may want to look at Dr Walkers patent diagram for
The Jamkazam architecture online. The software on your laptop is client software not a server

That session is the connection point for users to the session
And Jamkazam controls the quality of service by virtually
Connection more servers as more sessions are initiated

The concept I am suggesting. Jamkazam would license bands, jam group to host their own server
And this would likely improve latency

One of the reasons for this approach is that there are internet connection points
provided by web services companies like Amazon that
provide better performance than everyday residential
Connection points. This is the best place to host a session

The second reason for hosting the session on a server
Architecture is scaling up addition servers virtually as more sessions
and users authenticate

If the architecture is as you suggest this in itself would account
For very poor performance relying on residential connections
To wash user and no ability to scale up computer processing power

If Jamkazam licensed Jamkazam servers. It would likely
Be a Linux box with the software installed and the
Box would be licensed to a limited number of users
It becomes a dedicated session processor. This would
Put the user authentication and access under the control
If the licensed jam group. It could be installed on a residential
Internet connection like xfinity I million bps service

The proximity of users would still be a performance factor
A trial if this concept could verify the possibility for improved performance

I would like to have a conference call with Dr Walker, myself and
An expert audio engineer. I will bring the engineer to this discussion

There my jam group is a 501 C3 nonprofit and I would be willing
To sel grant funding to test a project with a distributed server

(06-21-2020, 12:41 PM)Hans Peter Augustesen Wrote: If JamKazam was not peer-to-peer - and the audio and video should pass through the server(s) in Texas, USA, the total latency to my JamKazam-friend 60 miles away (in Denmark, that is) would be about 200 milliseconds. Instead of the about 22 milliseconds it is now
Hans that is correct but with virtualized servers typically
there would be more than one server connected to the internet at key
locations.  There is likely a server hosted by Amazon connected
at a point in Europe.  Perhaps in Denmark 

performance in the internet is impeded more by
number of hops and less about the length of the wire
between hops  those routing conditions are not controlled
by Jamkazam or the user.  It is possible to have fewer hops across the ocean than across a city
  Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Distributed JamKazam Servers (Host) to improve performance - by kaminskied@comcast.net - 06-21-2020, 12:47 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)