[icecast] different play lists on different ports?

[Jack Moffitt]

> Is it better to run multiple icecasts on different ports or several mount
> points under one icecast from a performance standpoint?

IMO (I haven't tested this theory) it is by far less resource intensive
to use mountpoints.

- mountpoints are a thread, not a whole process.  it shares memory and
other context with the others.

The real problem comes with scaling. Due to some architecture flaws
(these are addressed in 2.0) icecast can only reliable handle about
50-75 mountpoints on one server.  Most people won't even get near this,
but when we were broadcasting close to 500 stations, it was an issue.
Above about 50 mountpoints, I find it's best to break into multiple
servers, with 50 mountpoints on each.  With icecast 2.0, I'm hoping that
this problem goes away.

The _only_ reason to use multiple instances over multiple ports is
geenrally if you feel you must use multiple copies of teh winamp dsp
plugin from the same machine.  Or, if you must list more than one
station in yp.shoutcast.com (since it only supports one per port, and
has no concept of mountpoints).

Personally, I find that limitation unbearable.  It's like having a web
server than can only serve one file.  Or a search engine that only lets
you list one file.

In any case, if you have a choice, go with mountpoints.

jack.

--- >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 at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.