I have a proposal from RackSpace to put icecast on the following hardware at their server farm. Can someone give me a "guesstimate" of how many listeners each box can support? Proposed hardware by RackSpace for each server box: Dual 866 MHz processor 2 GB ECC RAM 100 Mbps connection I need to know how many listeners can connect to each of these boxes. I don't know how to specify the hardware that icecast requires. If anyone thinks there is a better hardware specification than the one above I'd love to hear your suggestions along with how many listeners each server box could support. I know that the bandwidth of the network is a limiting factor and we're looking at load balancing to resolve this. Assuming the network bandwidth is adequate, the limiting factor would appear to be the server hardware boxes. Thanks very much for any help. - Peter --- >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.
At 13:53 01/13/2002 -0800, Peter Skye wrote:>I have a proposal from RackSpace to put icecast on the following >hardware at their server farm. Can someone give me a "guesstimate" of >how many listeners each box can support? > >Proposed hardware by RackSpace for each server box: > > Dual 866 MHz processor > 2 GB ECC RAM > 100 Mbps connection > >I need to know how many listeners can connect to each of these boxes.Assuming you have infinite bandwidth, that machine should be enough to handle.. oh I don't know, nearly and infinite number of listeners. You mention that you know "bandwidth is a limiting factor" but the fact is, it is *the* limiting factor. I bet you'll run into memory bandwidth issues (PC66/100/133, DDR, RDRAM, whatever) well before the CPU of even a Pentium-133 would be taxed. I probably manage about 2 minutes a day of CPU time with 10 listeners on an athlon 1.2. By that yardstick, with 1440 minutes in a day, and each listener requiring about 0.2 minutes, I should be able to serve 7200 users from this single machine. That is, of course, assuming I had a 675Mbit/sec line piped into the thing. --- >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.
Peter Skye wrote:> > I need to know how many listeners can connect . . .Wow, thanks for the answers. I thought the overhead (sockets etc) would strain the server -- guess not. RackSpace wants $7,400/month for 3TB (3,000GB) of monthly traffic. That's a major expense for a community radio station. Can anyone suggest a less expensive way to connect? - Peter --- >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.
Given my experience of running multiple streams on an old 486, I'd say you will run out of bandwidth before you overpower the server. At 01:53 PM 1/13/02 -0800, Peter Skye wrote:>I have a proposal from RackSpace to put icecast on the following >hardware at their server farm. Can someone give me a "guesstimate" of >how many listeners each box can support? > >Proposed hardware by RackSpace for each server box: > > Dual 866 MHz processor > 2 GB ECC RAM > 100 Mbps connection > >I need to know how many listeners can connect to each of these boxes. > >I don't know how to specify the hardware that icecast requires. If >anyone thinks there is a better hardware specification than the one >above I'd love to hear your suggestions along with how many listeners >each server box could support. > >I know that the bandwidth of the network is a limiting factor and we're >looking at load balancing to resolve this. Assuming the network >bandwidth is adequate, the limiting factor would appear to be the server >hardware boxes. > >Thanks very much for any help. > >- Peter > > > >--- >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.
> Given my experience of running multiple streams on an > old 486, I'd say you will run out of bandwidth before you > overpower the server.Bandwidth is indeed the biggest resources. We used dual CPU p3-600's at icast. We had 4 machines and we built it to easily handle 12,000 listeners over 500 streams. Only 3 were active at any one time ( the 4th was failover ). CPU load wasn't an issue at all. The shout boxes had quite complex perl scripts doing all kinds of stuff, and there we need the power, but the dual p3-600s were still enough to pull the weight there. 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.
> RackSpace wants $7,400/month for 3TB (3,000GB) of monthly traffic. > That's a major expense for a community radio station. Can anyone > suggest a less expensive way to connect?That sounds like a bad deal, or else my math is wrong. That comes out to 9Mbps per second here. Math: 3000GB * 8 bits/byte divided by 86400 sec/day * 30 days At one time (maybe bandwidth prices have gone way up), $500 a Mbit was considered 'retail', meaning more expensive than you needed to pay. At $500 for a Mbit, you'd be paying $4500 a month, not $7600. I'd look around :) 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.