Enrico Minack
2004-Aug-06 14:23 UTC
[icecast] Configuring icecast for lowest buffering/latency
> ...HTTP is very inefficient compared to RTP.what exactly do you mean with 'efficient'? Used bandwidth or available features?> There is no way in which RTP produces more overhead than HTTPwhy? basicly it takes the mp3-stream and puts timestamps and synch stuff around. isn't that overhead? Enrico M. --- >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.
Michael Smith
2004-Aug-06 14:23 UTC
[icecast] Configuring icecast for lowest buffering/latency
On Wednesday 24 March 2004 11:00, Enrico Minack wrote:> > ...HTTP is very inefficient compared to RTP. > > what exactly do you mean with 'efficient'? Used bandwidth or available > features?In terms of used bandwidth, RTP is the clear winner. In terms of features, neither is a clear winner: HTTP has features RTP doesn't have, RTP has features HTTP doesn't have.> > > There is no way in which RTP produces more overhead than HTTP > > why? basicly it takes the mp3-stream and puts timestamps and synch stuff > around. isn't that overhead? >Yes, that's overhead. Do you know how TCP works? HTTP works on top of TCP. TCP has more overhead than UDP/RTP. Mike --- >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.
Michael Smith
2004-Aug-06 14:23 UTC
[icecast] Configuring icecast for lowest buffering/latency
On Wednesday 24 March 2004 03:53, Enrico Minack wrote:> Why do you consider livecaster's stream being more efficient than the > HTTP-Stream? Actually, after the HTTP-Header there are just raw MP3-Data. > In comparision to that, livecaster puts these MP3-Data into an > RTP-protokoll, which produces more overhead than 'raw' http. And you may be > faced random packet loss.The original poster is correct. HTTP is very inefficient compared to RTP. There is no way in which RTP produces more overhead than HTTP - if you think it does, you don't understand the protocols. There are, of course, reasons to pick either protocol. RTP is more efficient (and can be used in multicast networks!), but you do have to be able to tolerate some packet loss. HTTP is much less efficient (and will generally have higher latency) but will correct for packet loss, and you also often have advantages with ease-of-use with things like getting through firewalls. Icecast is not a solution for all problems - only some :-) Mike --- >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.