[icecast] Configuring icecast for lowest buffering/latency
msmith at xiph.org
Tue Mar 23 23:27:15 UTC 2004
On Wednesday 24 March 2004 03:53, Enrico Minack wrote:
> Why do you consider livecaster's stream being more efficient than the
> HTTP-Stream? Actually, after the HTTP-Header there are just raw MP3-Data.
> In comparision to that, livecaster puts these MP3-Data into an
> RTP-protokoll, which produces more overhead than 'raw' http. And you may be
> faced random packet loss.
The original poster is correct. HTTP is very inefficient compared to RTP.
There is no way in which RTP produces more overhead than HTTP - if you think
it does, you don't understand the protocols.
There are, of course, reasons to pick either protocol. RTP is more efficient
(and can be used in multicast networks!), but you do have to be able to
tolerate some packet loss. HTTP is much less efficient (and will generally
have higher latency) but will correct for packet loss, and you also often
have advantages with ease-of-use with things like getting through firewalls.
Icecast is not a solution for all problems - only some :-)
--- >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.
More information about the Icecast