Your achievements

Level 1

0% to

Level 2

Tip /
Sign in

Sign in to Community

to gain points, level up, and earn exciting badges like the new
Bedrock Mission!

Learn more

View all

Sign in to view all badges

SOLVED

LCCS on Amazon EC2

jt05
Level 2
Level 2

Is there a way to get LCCS to work on an Amazon EC2 instance? I'd like to have peer-to-peer video chat, using EC2 as the handshaking service--or is there a different preferred method of deployment?

1 Accepted Solution
she_ugly
Correct answer by
Level 2
Level 2

Ya I think you're a little confused on what LCCS is my friend - LCCS is an all-in-one solution.  It takes care of the whole conferencing problem with minimal code, making Adobe do all the heavy lifting.  FMS isn't used at all - I don't think it's even possible to use a combination of LCCS and FMS because that would be pointless - FMS already has handshake galore built-in.  The only reason you'd want to use FMS is because deploying your own FMS cluster in the long run might be cheaper than LCCS (but depending on what you're planning on doing, you'll probably have to write a lot more code to use FMS.)  LCCS is a god-send to this world because it costs nothing to deploy, is ridiculously simple, and is still insanely competitive.

If I understand your problem (and I face a similar one) is that you want to have video chat but do not want to pay bandwidth fees?  Unfortunately there's no such thing as a free lunch and you're still going to have to pay some bandwidth fees, just not much - LCCS will take care of the handshake (which you'll pay for) if you force peer-only but then the video is free.  This isn't necessarily smart, however, because:

1. Peer-only doesn't always work because of network conditions.

2. You can't broadcast a peer-to-peer video session to lots of people (not sure when your use-case is.)

3. You can't record the video sessions if you do this (pretty sure this is true, need to double check.)

Anyways, good luck - LCCS is the bomb. If you're trying to minimize your fees, I would just try to force all connections to be peer-only and then pay for the guys where it doesn't work.  User experience is everything - users don't want to see they can't use your service because of some technical difficulty.

View solution in original post

5 Replies
she_ugly
Level 2
Level 2

I'm assuming you want to do this to avoid the expensive video transfer bandwidth fees?  In which case, using LCCS and specifying that you only want to allow peer-to-peer connections will just use LCCS to do the handshake and keep it dirt cheap.

jt05
Level 2
Level 2

Yeah, my main goal is to just allow the video chats to happen without managing the bandwidth myself. So Adobe LCCS does the handshaking, and I could use any deployment I want (such as Heroku, Dotcloud, or Amazon EC2)? Is that correct? The pricing is the same regardless?

Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question. I think I may be confused because I'm thinking of Flash Media Server, in which case there's an option I can use to prevent that from ever being used? Is FMS used in the event of a fallback, where a firewall may be blocking UDP packets in P2P, and instead would rely on TCP?

In that event, I'd need to get an FMS setup on Amazon EC2? Any good resources available on that?

she_ugly
Correct answer by
Level 2
Level 2

Ya I think you're a little confused on what LCCS is my friend - LCCS is an all-in-one solution.  It takes care of the whole conferencing problem with minimal code, making Adobe do all the heavy lifting.  FMS isn't used at all - I don't think it's even possible to use a combination of LCCS and FMS because that would be pointless - FMS already has handshake galore built-in.  The only reason you'd want to use FMS is because deploying your own FMS cluster in the long run might be cheaper than LCCS (but depending on what you're planning on doing, you'll probably have to write a lot more code to use FMS.)  LCCS is a god-send to this world because it costs nothing to deploy, is ridiculously simple, and is still insanely competitive.

If I understand your problem (and I face a similar one) is that you want to have video chat but do not want to pay bandwidth fees?  Unfortunately there's no such thing as a free lunch and you're still going to have to pay some bandwidth fees, just not much - LCCS will take care of the handshake (which you'll pay for) if you force peer-only but then the video is free.  This isn't necessarily smart, however, because:

1. Peer-only doesn't always work because of network conditions.

2. You can't broadcast a peer-to-peer video session to lots of people (not sure when your use-case is.)

3. You can't record the video sessions if you do this (pretty sure this is true, need to double check.)

Anyways, good luck - LCCS is the bomb. If you're trying to minimize your fees, I would just try to force all connections to be peer-only and then pay for the guys where it doesn't work.  User experience is everything - users don't want to see they can't use your service because of some technical difficulty.

jt05
Level 2
Level 2

Thanks for the reply. I am a little sleep deprived, so it wasn't quite clicking that LCCS handles the handshaking service and I really didn't need to do anything else besides generate the SWF to provide the video chat.

Nigel_Pegg
Level 10
Level 10

Nothing much to say here, other than this is my kinda thread 😃

nigel