Icecast - Aug 2004 - AW: AW: final question: how many mountpoints can icecast handle ?

Hi Jack

thanks a lot for the inside information about the mountpoints.

So what you're saying is that I need for my project when 
doing with icecast 1.x

- per 25-50 concurrent users one single server

So problem is, if I wanted to handle, say 1000 streams,
I would need 200 Servers..this puts the concept a bit 
in jeopardy because that would push the cost of the service 
into astronomical..in comparison to handling, as I had planned 
until now, 500 individual streams per server.

So I guess I'll have to wait until Icecast 2 for doing 
a real prototype of this.

Just so that I get this right - if I have 1000 different on-demand 
streams (its on-demand radio from huge mp3-library for users) 
mountpoints are definitly the way to go, yes ? Or am I on the woodpath ?

Thanks a lot

Andrew
> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jack Moffitt [mailto:jack@xiph.org]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. November 2001 00:08
> An: Andreas Gunzenhauser
> Cc: icecast@xiph.org
> Betreff: Re: [icecast] final question: how many mountpoints 
> can icecast
> handle ?
> 
> 
> > What happens when I use instead of ONE stream 
> > different streams, because my concept is an on-demand 
> > radio station that basically provides everyone with 
> > access to a huge library of music files and lets him 
> > create an own playlist that will be played only for him..
> > so if there is 1000 concurrent users, can there be 1000 
> > different mount points - and will it still work ?
> 
> Theoretically you can use as many mountpoints as you want.
> Unfortunately, some of the locking in icecast 1.x isn't very 
> well done,
> and this causes problems in specifically this instance (of 
> large numbers
> of mountpoints).
> 
> Practical testing of icecast under these conditions revealed 
> that 25-50
> mount points is reasonable, but much more starts to get 
> dicey.  > 100 is
> almost totally usuable.
> 
> This won't be as big of an issue in icecast2 since the 
> locking was more
> well thought out this time through.  I hope to make the mountpoints a
> nonissue, as the number of clients currently are.
> 
> 25-50 should be enough for even hardcore use,  and if you 
> need more (as
> we did.  we were doing 450+ streams), it's easy enough to split them
> over multiple icecast servers with each server handling 25-50 streams.
> 
> jack.
> 
--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'icecast-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.

Hello Michael

damn, I was afraid of that, but thanks for lightening me up 
(although I am in complete darkness now, after having seen 
the light just some days ago..)

I'm looking into http streaming of the static files just now,
but I came to find that there is one huge drawback:

1. when sending the stream out with icecast/shoutcast 
   it would be possible to "push" the next song in, even 
   let the user influence this so that he could act like 
   when playing a CD, so he could go on to the next song etc 
   and request specific songs from his playlist. 

   Unfortunately, as it turned out, icecast is thought to 
   send a FEW source-streams to MANY users. What I want to do is send 
   ONE source-stream to ONE user, so it will be as many source streams 
   as there will be users.

2. When using http streaming, sending ONE static mp3 file to one user 
   works fine, apache can handle many such streams, but the user
   could then just have ONE file sent, then select the next and play it 
   etc -> so its again a computer-thing, no stereo-like interface that 
   even my mum could use when connected to the internet to look for songs, 
   add to playlist and let them be played by a continous stream.

Please excuse my ignorance but I don't know about a way to 
do such a thing to have a way to interact with the stream.

Anybody ?

best regards,

Andrew
> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-icecast@xiph.org [mailto:owner-icecast@xiph.org]Im Auftrag
> von Michael Smith
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. November 2001 11:50
> An: icecast@xiph.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: [icecast] final question: how many mountpoints can
> icecast handle ?
> 
> 
> 
> >So problem is, if I wanted to handle, say 1000 streams,
> >I would need 200 Servers..this puts the concept a bit 
> >in jeopardy because that would push the cost of the service 
> >into astronomical..in comparison to handling, as I had planned 
> >until now, 500 individual streams per server.
> 
> Well, your calculations are a bit off here to begin with - the numbers
> here give 20 (or more) servers, not 200 or more. 
> 
> >
> >So I guess I'll have to wait until Icecast 2 for doing 
> >a real prototype of this.
> >
> >Just so that I get this right - if I have 1000 different on-demand 
> >streams (its on-demand radio from huge mp3-library for users) 
> >mountpoints are definitly the way to go, yes ? Or am I on 
> the woodpath ?
> 
> Really, you're on completely the wrong path here - there's a simple
> way to do this. Remember: icecast just serves content over 
> HTTP. If all
> you want to do is serve a static mp3 library to individual 
> users, seperately,
> then a web server (such as apache) is much better suited to 
> your needs.
> 
> This isn't to suggest that icecast CAN'T do this, but it 
> isn't really the
> most sensible approach.
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> --- >8 ----
> List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
> icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/
> To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 
> 'icecast-request@xiph.org'
> containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No 
> subject is needed.
> Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
> 
--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'icecast-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.

The others had nice comments as well so I will just touch on a few
points.  I also agree that Apache is your best bet for what you are
trying to do.
> - per 25-50 concurrent users one single server
it's 'per stream' not 'per user'.  If it's one stream
per user then it
equals the same thing.
> So problem is, if I wanted to handle, say 1000 streams,
> I would need 200 Servers..this puts the concept a bit 
> in jeopardy because that would push the cost of the service 
> into astronomical..in comparison to handling, as I had planned 
> until now, 500 individual streams per server.
You're confusing terms slightly.  When I said 'server' I meant the
icecast server, and here you are using it to mean a physical machine.

You can run lots and lots of mountpoints on one physical machine, but
only 25-50 per icecast instance.  You can certainly run 20 icecast
instances on the same physical machine to get the number of mountpoints
you want.  It's not much more effort, and shouldn't cost you anything
extra.

jack.

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'icecast-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.

>So problem is, if I wanted to handle, say 1000 streams,
>I would need 200 Servers..this puts the concept a bit 
>in jeopardy because that would push the cost of the service 
>into astronomical..in comparison to handling, as I had planned 
>until now, 500 individual streams per server.
Well, your calculations are a bit off here to begin with - the numbers
here give 20 (or more) servers, not 200 or more. 
>
>So I guess I'll have to wait until Icecast 2 for doing 
>a real prototype of this.
>
>Just so that I get this right - if I have 1000 different on-demand 
>streams (its on-demand radio from huge mp3-library for users) 
>mountpoints are definitly the way to go, yes ? Or am I on the woodpath ?
Really, you're on completely the wrong path here - there's a simple
way to do this. Remember: icecast just serves content over HTTP. If all
you want to do is serve a static mp3 library to individual users, seperately,
then a web server (such as apache) is much better suited to your needs.

This isn't to suggest that icecast CAN'T do this, but it isn't
really the
most sensible approach.

Michael

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'icecast-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.