search for: loadtests

Alle, We're running Dovecot V1.0.7 on RHEL5.5, using maildir. We would like to user per user quotas with an OpenLDAP (V2.3.43) backend. We have setup a default quota in /etc/dovecot.conf: quota = maildir:storage=10240:ignore=Trash And have the following userdb configs in /etc/doveconf.conf: userdb ldap { args = /etc/dovecot-ldap.conf } and the following user_attrs defined in

Hi I have a potential project for which my client requests that we load balance the streaming service. Of course, the Icecast server scales very well. - http://icecast.org/loadtest/ However, the client requests high-availability and, due to the scale of the potential project, we would like to load balance the service over two or more servers. I think the load balancing aspect is not my

I’m going to try to run multiple curl processes. The libuv code that i wrote is not of a very good quality (even though it’s really simple). thanks! —zahar > On Jun 10, 2016, at 2:43 PM, Alejandro <cdgraff at gmail.com> wrote: > > In the past, i had used this method: > > http://icecast.org/loadtest/1/ <http://icecast.org/loadtest/1/> > > But to be honest,

Good afternoon Philipp Many thanks for your reply. Sorry for not being clear. I think the problem I have would be in the implementation. How do I run two versions of Icecast on two servers, with load balancing between the two (perhaps using RR-DNS), but I present my client with one unified log file for the audience statistics? Should the two servers write their logs via a network file share to

I wrote a test application which is based on libuv. iptables is disabled. I’m running the test application from two other machines. Do you have any suggestions for testing? thanks! —zahar > On Jun 10, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Alejandro <cdgraff at gmail.com> wrote: > > Zahar, how are you testing? with some CURL stress test? BTW, IPTABLES is enabled? > > I was running most time

Excellent results Oddsock, I'm surprised about the amount of free memory that is avalaible when using icecast instead of scast in high demand situations, impressive! Regards. -----Original Message----- From: icecast-bounces@xiph.org [mailto:icecast-bounces@xiph.org] On Behalf Of oddsock Sent: 15 November 2005 4:52 AM To: icecast@xiph.org Subject: [Icecast] New icecast load test reports

Yup, Its all about the bandwidth! Why not check out the load tests that were done by oddsock? http://icecast.org/loadtest.php Regards -----Original Message----- From: icecast-bounces@xiph.org [mailto:icecast-bounces@xiph.org] On Behalf Of Steven Clift Sent: 21 November 2005 4:03 PM To: icecast@xiph.org Subject: [Icecast] Server question - if you had ... If you had $3,000 for a new Icecast2

Good afternoon, On Mon, 2020-01-13 at 13:30 +0000, Chip wrote: > Hi > > I have a potential project for which my client requests that we load > balance the streaming service. > > Of course, the Icecast server scales very well. > > - http://icecast.org/loadtest/ > > However, the client requests high-availability and, due to the scale of the > potential

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

>> static int xmit_skb(struct send_queue *sq, struct sk_buff *skb) >> { >> struct virtio_net_hdr_mrg_rxbuf *hdr; >> @@ -1130,9 +1172,11 @@ static netdev_tx_t start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, >> struct net_device *dev) >> int err; >> struct netdev_queue *txq = netdev_get_tx_queue(dev, qnum); >> bool kick =

>> static int xmit_skb(struct send_queue *sq, struct sk_buff *skb) >> { >> struct virtio_net_hdr_mrg_rxbuf *hdr; >> @@ -1130,9 +1172,11 @@ static netdev_tx_t start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, >> struct net_device *dev) >> int err; >> struct netdev_queue *txq = netdev_get_tx_queue(dev, qnum); >> bool kick =

Justin, looks like there is some misunderstanding in my email. I want to clarify it here first: 1) I am not proposing changing the default profile dumping model as used today. The online merging is totally optional; 2) the on-line profile merging is not doing conversion from raw to index format. It does very simple raw-to-raw merging using existing runtime APIs. 3) the change to existing profile

Good afternoon, On Mon, 2020-01-13 at 13:41 +0000, Chip wrote: > Good afternoon Philipp > > Many thanks for your reply. > Sorry for not being clear. > > I think the problem I have would be in the implementation. Ok. > How do I run two versions of Icecast on two servers, with load balancing > between the two (perhaps using RR-DNS), Generally I recommend RR-DNS as it

> On Feb 28, 2016, at 12:46 AM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Justin, looks like there is some misunderstanding in my email. I want to clarify it here first: > > 1) I am not proposing changing the default profile dumping model as used today. The online merging is totally optional; > 2) the on-line profile merging is not doing

In the past, i had used this method: http://icecast.org/loadtest/1/ But to be honest, nothing be compared with real use case, we found many issues when the connections arrive from many differents IPs, the stress test open all from small set of IPs, but almost this test case is used for many others, and present good results. 2016-06-10 2:40 GMT-03:00 Popov, Zahar <zahar.popov1978 at

+ 1 to Sean's suggestion of using a wrapper script to call profdata merge. David, does that work for your use case? Some inline comments --- > On Feb 28, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 28, 2016, at 12:46 AM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>

Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > One of the main missing features in Clang/LLVM profile runtime is the lack of > support for online/in-process profile merging support. Profile data collected > for different workloads for the same executable binary need to be collected > and merged later by the offline post-processing tool.  This limitation

Hi Guys, Can anyone provide more details about where the lag would occur if I did try to pursue a push to talk scenario with Icecast. I'm not sure exactly how it works now so I'll outline the two potential discussion flows I have in mind. Perhaps someone could elaborate on between which steps the 5-10 seconds of lag would come into play. Mumble does look like it might be a better fit

One of the main missing features in Clang/LLVM profile runtime is the lack of support for online/in-process profile merging support. Profile data collected for different workloads for the same executable binary need to be collected and merged later by the offline post-processing tool. This limitation makes it hard to handle cases where the instrumented binary needs to be run with large number of