Hello, Thank you for your response. It is on the kh version.. https://github.com/karlheyes/icecast-kh Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 21:47, Thomas B. Rücker <thomas at ruecker.fi> a écrit :> Hi, > > On 11/03/2018 07:33 PM, Mickael MONSIEUR wrote: > > Hi, > > Where is the mount option 'limit-rate' in the current version? > > I checked in cfgfile.c and in the documentation, no mention. > > This option does not exist. > > > > Yet this option did exist at one time: > > http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast/2010-October/011703.html > > http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast/2009-January/011391.html > > > > This option never existed in official Icecast versions. > > > > I try to limit the bitrate of a mount-point, is there another solution? > > Depends on what you are trying to achieve. There are several ways. > One is e.g. to use a combination of iptables and tc. > What's the problem you are solving? > > > > Do you know why this option has disappeared, and from which version? > > Again, this has never existed in a stable and official Icecast version. > > > Cheers, > TBR > > _______________________________________________ > Icecast mailing list > Icecast at xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/icecast >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast/attachments/20181103/27f65f84/attachment.html>
On 11/03/2018 09:53 PM, Mickael MONSIEUR wrote:> Hello, > Thank you for your response. > It is on the kh version..That's not a version. That's completely different software at this point. It's also not Xiph.org, but published by Karl. TBR> Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 21:47, Thomas B. Rücker <thomas at ruecker.fi > <mailto:thomas at ruecker.fi>> a écrit : > > Hi, > > On 11/03/2018 07:33 PM, Mickael MONSIEUR wrote: > > Hi, > > Where is the mount option 'limit-rate' in the current version? > > I checked in cfgfile.c and in the documentation, no mention. > > This option does not exist. > > > > Yet this option did exist at one time: > > http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast/2010-October/011703.html > > http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast/2009-January/011391.html > > > > This option never existed in official Icecast versions. > > > > I try to limit the bitrate of a mount-point, is there another > solution? > > Depends on what you are trying to achieve. There are several ways. > One is e.g. to use a combination of iptables and tc. > What's the problem you are solving? > > > > Do you know why this option has disappeared, and from which version? > > Again, this has never existed in a stable and official Icecast > version. > > > Cheers, > TBR > > _______________________________________________ > Icecast mailing list > Icecast at xiph.org <mailto:Icecast at xiph.org> > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/icecast > > > > _______________________________________________ > Icecast mailing list > Icecast at xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/icecast-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast/attachments/20181104/fcf50a76/attachment-0001.html>
On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 11:54:16AM +0000, Thomas B. Rücker wrote:> That's not a version. > That's completely different software at this point. > It's also not Xiph.org, but published by Karl.It is a desirable feature, though. The use case is a server with one or more external feeds, where those feeds can be intermittent. You want a fallback-mount to a static file for when the feed drops, but you also want the listeners to go back to the live feed soon after it returns. Unfortunately, the way Icecast2 works with static files is that it feeds as much as the listener's player software buffer can take, meaning a huge spike in bandwidth use when it falls back to a static file, and (more importantly) a huge lag in returning to the correct feed when that reconnects. The way I'm working round this at the moment is to have an instance of liquidsoap on the same server as Icecast, encoding a single static file as a set of continually running fallback-mount feeds, with the same encoder settings as the feeds they're guarding. This is wasteful in resources (memory and CPU) for what could be pre-encoded static files if Icecast had some sort of rate limitation on feeding out static files. -- Paul Martin <pm at nowster.me.uk>