Hi all, must say I have found the help in this group very disapointing. Have mail numerous times for help with some (in hindsight) simple problems. yet no one (ok 1 person) has attempted to aid me. If this group was ONLY filled with novices and users I could accept this but I have seen members of the development team , and others who have insight into the workings of icecast comment on other (non technical) matters. Now I don't mind working on my own to fix all my problems (because I can eventually come up with a solution) BUT one of the purpose of this group (any for that matter) is to share knowledge. It is the lack of this that disappoints me. Just thought I would air my thoughts.. Your thoughts are (needed) welcome K <p>--- >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.
MR I wrote:> must say I have found the help in this group very disapointing. HaveI don't understand why people keep complaining about this list. It's not that anyone has the right to get personal assistance by the developers (note: I am no developer). It's also better for all of us when the developers don't have to waste their time on this list for minor/simple things, imo. Fellow users usually answer when they got something to say. Except for the occasional spam, this list has a very high s/n ratio, which is what I like. Better silence than constant noise. If I knew what else Icecast2's config file could take, I'd have answered, and I'm sure others would have done so, too. Icecast2 isn't even in alpha stage, yet. (Otherwise Jack would've finished an alpha release for us meanwhile.) It does Ogg Vorbis streaming and supports the most essential things that it has to support in order be working at all. It is very likely that icecast.xml contains everything available already. Those who use Icecast2 should keep that in mind and not treat it as a complete software product. Icecast2's robustness and functionality might make it almost look like production quality already, but that doesn't make it any more "finished" than it is right now. Besides, if Icecast2 WOULD get a new configurable feature, I am quite sure the developers would add it to icecast.xml immediately - otherwise people couldn't test it. <p>Moritz --- >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.
Moritz Grimm wrote:>MR I wrote: > > >>must say I have found the help in this group very disapointing. Have >> >> > >I don't understand why people keep complaining about this list. It's not >that anyone has the right to get personal assistance by the developers >(note: I am no developer). It's also better for all of us when the >developers don't have to waste their time on this list for minor/simple >things, imo. Fellow users usually answer when they got something to say. >Except for the occasional spam, this list has a very high s/n ratio, >which is what I like. Better silence than constant noise. > >I follow your believes and views... however if things are simple then providing an answer is also simple (i.e man ices or "use background mode"). I certainly don't wish to be spoon feed just pointed in the right direction. After all the purpose for joining this list was so I could join a community of like minds. In the end I know I can find a solution, but if the case is that everyone finds a solution by themselfs then this list is pointless. Shared problems often equal faster solutions.>If I knew what else Icecast2's config file could take, I'd have >answered, and I'm sure others would have done so, too. Icecast2 isn't >even in alpha stage, yet. (Otherwise Jack would've finished an alpha >release for us meanwhile.) It does Ogg Vorbis streaming and supports the >most essential things that it has to support in order be working at all. >1. my comment was not directed to you as an individual, as indeed the answers you gave displayed your knowledge. (i.e. you stated what you knew) I MUCH prefer that than babble about nothing. 2. Yes icecast2 is UNSUPPORTED.. not unsupportable! that's why I'm here! 3. For Icecast2 there is valid reasons for the level of support... But what about icecast1's Documentation? We all know that it is lacking thats why I started using this group. K <p>--- >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.
Hi: 1. Icecast 1.x is no longer being developed excepting for security patches and bug-fixes. Acordingly, it's probably also fair to say that it's not really being supported, since basically, the developers have other fish to fry. There is, of course, a decent sized user base, which I'm guessing would make up the majority of this list. 2. Shout has not been supported for some time and the developers (and many users) are up-front about this. 3. Ices (currently at 0.2.3) is still being developed by Brendan Cully <SP?>. IIRC, he's generally quick to respond to queries directly about ices. 4. Icecast2/libshout2/ices2 are under active development at this time. The developers are at least keeping an eye on icecast-dev, as patches are being committed. Keep in mind however that the guys doing this are also heavily involved in Vorbis' development which is likely taking up a good deal of time right now. Speaking as a person who's dabbled with icecast 1.x but not done a great deal with it, the manual seems fairly thorough in documenting features, etc. However, it would seem that a FAQ for this list would be a good thing as a number of questions seem to come up at regular intervals. Geoff. <p> -- Geoff Shang <gshang@uq.net.au> ICQ number 43634701 Make sure your E-mail can be read by everyone! http://www.betips.net/etc/evilmail.html Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html <p><p>--- >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.
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 04:14:32PM +0200, christophe.guerin@etud.univ-pau.fr wrote:> > If you want to broadcast to listeners, you'll need: > > * 90Mhz or faster server, running one of Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000, ME, > Mac OS X, Sparc Solaris 2.x, FreeBSD 3.x, FreeBSD 4.x, or Linux with > a libc6 kernel.I don't know if icecast works under non-unix like systems, however it doesn't consume much CPU resource it seems. the big resource hog is the encoder, which you may or may not install on the same machine than the icecast server.> * 14kB of memory for every listener you want to broadcast to (i.e. 1,000 > listeners means you need 14 Megabytes of RAM), plus whatever your > operating system needs for overhead, plus 1.5MB for the server's > base requirements. Don't set the listener count higher than you need, > it just screws things up.I seem to remember having read 32 kB for each icecast client, but maybe I'm wrong> > * Enough bandwidth to run the server. If you want to broadcast to 100 > listeners at 24kbps, you'll need about 24kbps*100 = 2,400kbps = 2.4Mbps > of bandwidth. That's about 2 T1 lines worth of bandwidth. Trying to > push 100 128kbps listeners down your 768kbps cable modem isn't going > to work :)Why would this one be different ? hth. Jerome Alet - Medicine School of Nice - France --- >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.
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 09:50:58PM +1000, Geoff Shang wrote:> Hi: > > 1. Icecast 1.x is no longer being developed excepting for security patches > and bug-fixes. Acordingly, it's probably also fair to say that it's not > really being supported, since basically, the developers have other fish to > fry. There is, of course, a decent sized user base, which I'm guessing > would make up the majority of this list. > > 2. Shout has not been supported for some time and the developers (and many > users) are up-front about this. > > 3. Ices (currently at 0.2.3) is still being developed by Brendan Cully > <SP?>. IIRC, he's generally quick to respond to queries directly about > ices. > > 4. Icecast2/libshout2/ices2 are under active development at this time. > The developers are at least keeping an eye on icecast-dev, as patches are > being committed. Keep in mind however that the guys doing this are also > heavily involved in Vorbis' development which is likely taking up a good > deal of time right now. >I would say that this was an accurate picture, I don't actually use Icecast 1 or 2 but do have an interest music and streaming technology so I just tend to lurk. and read the occasional thread that interests me.> Speaking as a person who's dabbled with icecast 1.x but not done a great > deal with it, the manual seems fairly thorough in documenting features, > etc. However, it would seem that a FAQ for this list would be a good thing > as a number of questions seem to come up at regular intervals. >I agree to a certain degree with the need for better documentation particularily if the developers are not going to tune in to the user list on a regular basis something they seemed to do more in the past. It seems that a problem with this list is a gap between the developers who seemed to know a lot about the system but were too busy developing this and other stuff like Ogg Vorbis and the users on the list. Who seem to be new to the software and in some cases general *nix stuff. This project needs something like the commentable documentation on the MySQL site, where registered users can place footnotes below the main documentation. This should help and setting up a wiki system is not a difficult task. On a final note, particularly if there are developers lurking on this list. I put a strong emphasis on documentation and user support when choosing an application for my systems, it doesn't matter how great an application is if I can get it to work. By the same token Free Software project need users to support and enrich them for them to become great. There does seem to be some fundamental structural problems with Icecast as a project at the moment. Peace Jim --- >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.
christophe.guerin@etud.univ-pau.fr
2004-Aug-06 14:22 UTC
[icecast] memory, processor, bandwidth
The shoutcast doc says: If you want to broadcast to listeners, you'll need: * 90Mhz or faster server, running one of Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000, ME, Mac OS X, Sparc Solaris 2.x, FreeBSD 3.x, FreeBSD 4.x, or Linux with a libc6 kernel. * 14kB of memory for every listener you want to broadcast to (i.e. 1,000 listeners means you need 14 Megabytes of RAM), plus whatever your operating system needs for overhead, plus 1.5MB for the server's base requirements. Don't set the listener count higher than you need, it just screws things up. * Enough bandwidth to run the server. If you want to broadcast to 100 listeners at 24kbps, you'll need about 24kbps*100 = 2,400kbps = 2.4Mbps of bandwidth. That's about 2 T1 lines worth of bandwidth. Trying to push 100 128kbps listeners down your 768kbps cable modem isn't going to work :) <p>Is it the same rules for Icecast?? Thank you in advance. -- CHRISTOPHE GUERIN (christophe.guerin@etud.univ-pau.fr) --- >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.
christophe.guerin@etud.univ-pau.fr wrote:> > * Enough bandwidth to run the server. If you want to broadcast to 100 > listeners at 24kbps, you'll need about 24kbps*100 = 2,400kbps = 2.4Mbps > of bandwidth. That's about 2 T1 lines worth of bandwidth. Trying to > push 100 128kbps listeners down your 768kbps cable modem isn't going > to work :)It doesn't say if it's using stereo or mono quality. You should read the MP3-HOWTO. In the bandwidth considerations section you'll find: "Consider this scenario. A T1 link has a capacity of approx. 1.55 Mb/Sec. If you stream your MP3's at 128K/Bps stereo, each connecting player will use 256K/Bps, so only 6 users could connect to your MP3 server at any time without problems." So, if you want to broadcast to 100 listeners at 24 kbps (mono), you'll need about 24 kbps x 100 = 2.4 Mbps of bandwidth, and you must double it if you want to broadcast at 24 kbps (stereo) <p>>> Is it the same rules for Icecast?? > > Thank you in advance. > -- > CHRISTOPHE GUERIN > (christophe.guerin@etud.univ-pau.fr) >-- Luis M. Gallardo D. Linux User #130502 Caracas - Venezuela --- >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.
On Thu, 23 May 2002 christophe.guerin@etud.univ-pau.fr wrote:> * 14kB of memory for every listener you want to broadcast to (i.e. 1,000 > listeners means you need 14 Megabytes of RAM), plus whatever your > operating system needs for overhead, plus 1.5MB for the server's > base requirements. Don't set the listener count higher than you need, > it just screws things up.IIRC, icecast allocates memory and resources dynamically, whereas shoutcast allocates them up front, based on the maximum number of clients as specified in the config. So using the above example, shoutcast will use 15.5 MB of RAM *all the time*, whether you have 100 listeners or 1. Having said that, I don't know the per listener figure for icecast. Oh and there are, I believe, win32 ports of icecast. Geoff. <p><p> -- Geoff Shang <gshang@uq.net.au> ICQ number 43634701 Make sure your E-mail can be read by everyone! http://www.betips.net/etc/evilmail.html Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html <p><p>--- >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.