Regional SCS or Centralized SCS?

[pspenning]

Good Day Everyone,
I have a design opinion question that I would appreciate your views on.
We have Global operations in Australia, India, South America, North America, and Europe.  North America is the where the main Config Database / Config Server reside along with all reporting, URS, Stat Servers, SIP Server, etc. for North America.
We have broken each other location in to regions and have deployed a pair of each:  URS, URS Stat Server, Regional SCS, SIP Server, Message Server, CCPulse Stat Server, Media Servers, and Config Proxy.  One reason I chose this design is for resilience during a network issue.

My question comes to the Solutions Control Server.  In this design, would you keep SCS as a centralized solution or would you place a regional SCS in each of the locations?  I would be interested in hearing Pros and Cons for each.


Many Thanks -
Perry

[cavagnaro]

I'd put it at least one for each region. Delays, disconnections, hardware failure on a centralized component can be a serious point of failure.
By having many you isolate issues like those.
Of course, having one simplifies operating cost but the day it fails...will that cost be payed off? You have to make that decision with business owners.


Enviado de meu C6602 usando Tapatalk

[Fra]

For large solutions, the main recommendation from Genesys is to create non-overlapping subset of hosts/applications each controlled by a specific SCS instance. This is because a) the load on SCS increases significantly and b) I believe there's a limitation on the overall number of hosts a SCS can control.

This is even more critical where the blueprint of your deployment spans across distant geographical areas: failures / disconnections occurring on the WAN would have a huge impact on your ability to manage a / multiple regions in one go.

Personally, I would not hesitate to deploy multiple regional SCS instances.

Fra