Icecast - Dec 2006 - Server Requirements

Hi Chip,
>hi david
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm looking to stream a large amount of conncurrent connects and
want
to
>> use icecast probably on a CentOS base. The bandwidth requirements are
over
>> 60 Mbps before any overheads, I'm looking at using some Dell SC1425
machines
>> but am not sure how many I'd need, I'd appreciated hearing your
experiences
>> and suggestions.
>
>this is probably of some tangential relevance:
>
>http://www.icecast.org/loadtest1.php
Thanks for the link I will have a good look through. At first glance it's
looking impressive.
>Oddsock tested up to 14,000 concurrent users - but it was only
>listeners that were tested for. it would be great to see another test
>to simulate concurrent encoders and listeners.
Am I right in thinking when using the likes of SAM, Oddcast, Simplecast the
encoding is done clientside? Under what circumstance would the encoding load
be server-side? On-demand delivery?
>anyway, Icecast appears to scale very nicely.
It looks that way.
>cheers
>
>Chip
Thanks,
David

___________________________________________________________

Tiscali Broadband only 9.99 a month for your first 3 months!
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/

davidhooper@tiscali.co.uk schrieb:
>> Oddsock tested up to 14,000 concurrent users - but it was only
>> listeners that were tested for. it would be great to see another test
>> to simulate concurrent encoders and listeners.
> 
> Am I right in thinking when using the likes of SAM, Oddcast, Simplecast the
> encoding is done clientside? Under what circumstance would the encoding
load
> be server-side? On-demand delivery?
> 
nope, on demand is simple http file serving. (Sidenote: it's not as 
performant as apache)

Icecast will never really do any "encoding".
Sysload will be introduced if you run an separate encoder (e.g. ices2) 
on the same box.

Cheers

Thomas

hi
> davidhooper@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > Am I right in thinking when using the likes of SAM, Oddcast,
Simplecast the
> > encoding is done clientside? Under what circumstance would the
encoding load
> > be server-side? On-demand delivery?
"Thomas B. R?cker" <dm8tbr@afthd.tu-darmstadt.de>
schrieb:
> nope, on demand is simple http file serving. (Sidenote: it's not as
> performant as apache)
so it would be better to use mod_mp3 for serving files on-demand?

this article here says it has a lot of functionality but it was written in 2001:

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/apache/2001/06/12/mp3.html
> Icecast will never really do any "encoding".
> Sysload will be introduced if you run an separate encoder (e.g. ices2)
> on the same box.
so as Icecast is acting merely as a "bit turnstile" without
undertaking any server side processing then the loadtest graph here -
http://www.icecast.org/loadtest1.php - i guess probably gives quite an
accurate prediction of how Icecast would perform with different
combinations of encoders and listeners to a maximum ceiling of 14,000
listener streams.

incidentally there is some useful information if you Google for
"icecast performance" including optimisation tweaks,

all the best

chip