Icecast - Aug 2004 - Icecast or Apache streaming for static files?

Hi,

A simple question, that I would appreciate some opinions on:

What are the advantages for using Icecast to stream static MP3 files 
rather than just letting Apache handle the streaming?

Many thanks,

Glen Scott

--- >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.

Glen Scott wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> A simple question, that I would appreciate some opinions on:
> 
> What are the advantages for using Icecast to stream static MP3 files
> rather than just letting Apache handle the streaming?
Icecast has a lower performance overhead, I can push more streams with
icecast than I can with a straight Apache.


-- 
Scott Manley (AKA Szyzyg)
Streaming Media Hacker
www.myplay.com

--- >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.

Jack Moffitt wrote:
> 
> > What are the advantages for using Icecast to stream static MP3 files
> > rather than just letting Apache handle the streaming?
> 
> There are a few variables.
> 
> In general, I always use apache for streaming static content.  There is
> hardly a reason not to.
> 
> Now, when would I change my mind?
> 
> - if the songs are very large and the simultaneous listeners are as
> well.  apache sucks more resources than icecast per client (one forked
> process for each to icecast's 32 bytes extra or whatever).  this can be
> worked around by putting apache on multiple boxes.  myplay used to run
> exclusively on apache with thousands and thousands of users.  I'm not
> sure what they are doing today.
We do indeed still use apache, it's efficient enough for our purposes
and rock solid - we've never had any software failures. Certainly apache
has more overhead. Myplay of course deals purely in individual streams,
there's no 
> - if the streaming needs any kind of logic.  When vorbis has bitrate
> peeling, apache will no longer be a good fit.
Actually, the apache module interface is perfectly suited to adding
stream logic and myplay has a shitload of this to build playlists and
samples in realtime.
> So right now, unless apache is breaking on your setup, use it for static
> streaming.  The static streaming feature in icecast was added for
> convinience, but it's not really capable of much.  I was planning to
add
> much more to it at the time (like streaming playlists or streaming 30
> second clips from full mp3s, or streaming a random 30 seconds of the
> files, etc, but never got around to it.
Myplay has this kind of logic in an apache module, it's pretty trivial
to develop.
> Of course, this argument will change as soon as there is a decent RTSP
> server.  I think one could be implemented within the Apache 2.0 module
> API, but I haven't looked into this in depth.
Yaayy RTSP....
Jack - you might have something there, I will look into this.


-- 
Scott Manley (AKA Szyzyg)
Streaming Media Hacker
www.myplay.com

--- >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.

> What are the advantages for using Icecast to stream static MP3 files 
> rather than just letting Apache handle the streaming?
There are a few variables.

In general, I always use apache for streaming static content.  There is
hardly a reason not to.

Now, when would I change my mind?

- if the songs are very large and the simultaneous listeners are as
well.  apache sucks more resources than icecast per client (one forked
process for each to icecast's 32 bytes extra or whatever).  this can be
worked around by putting apache on multiple boxes.  myplay used to run
exclusively on apache with thousands and thousands of users.  I'm not
sure what they are doing today.

- if the streaming needs any kind of logic.  When vorbis has bitrate
peeling, apache will no longer be a good fit.

So right now, unless apache is breaking on your setup, use it for static
streaming.  The static streaming feature in icecast was added for
convinience, but it's not really capable of much.  I was planning to add
much more to it at the time (like streaming playlists or streaming 30
second clips from full mp3s, or streaming a random 30 seconds of the
files, etc, but never got around to it.

Of course, this argument will change as soon as there is a decent RTSP
server.  I think one could be implemented within the Apache 2.0 module
API, but I haven't looked into this in depth.

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.