[Icecast] (no subject)
Fri Jul 9 12:26:28 PDT 2004
<23b252e0407090944ab5f8ef at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <016901c465ea$a1cdfac0$0864a8c0 at desk>
> ...I think
> having these on two different machines would actually lower
> reliablity. Am I overlooking something?
I can say that Icecast and its sources (liveice or darkice) are very very
stable. We never had had problems with having live source and icecast on one
machine (and even archiving mechanism). Right now, we have icecast and
darkice running 24/7 for 31 days without any problem.
> Also, I do realize we wil need an encoder (possibly two)
darkice is capable of creating different streams (mp3 and ogg) in different
qualities from one source (soundcard). The problem is, it seems to be pretty
cpu intens. We are running a P4 2GHz live encoding 3 streams: 128, 56 and 32
kbps with quality 0.8 and needs up to 60% of CPU load.
Before darkice and icecast2 we used liveice and icecast1 which produced a
128 and 48 kbps mp3 stream using 60% CPU on a Duron 600 or so. Quite
But you will never need that much RAM ;-) Maybe 10 MB on top of your
system's memory needs.
More information about the Icecast