[Icecast] multiple icecast server instances on debian system

[David Saunders]

Hey,

  It seams strange you need to use more then one icecast.  But you have to
make sure the PID, logs, and any other little file that need to be written.
Make multiple config files and it should work.  I never done it cause I
never had set up that needed it. (and not sure what one does)

becuase:
  1> I have run close to 100 active mounts at once, with 50 to 100
listeners on each.
 2> This also included 50 or so push relays, ( We have to push to secondary
servers on other networks because of bandwidth restrictions. )
 3> Used a common address for all streams with a php script to rout it to
the correct servers.

 and his was a couple years ago. Today we have probably 100 mounts
predefined with a seperate source port per team that use the service.we
current use a couple overflow servers to handle large amount of listeners.







On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, tzara <rc-lists at kiben.net> wrote:

>  On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:37:04 +0200, Philipp Schafft wrote:
> > reflum,
> >
> > On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 17:19 +0100, tzara wrote:
> >>  hello,
> >>
> >>  i am trying to have multiple server instances on different ports on
> >> the
> >>  same debian server.
> >
> > This by itself sounds wrong.
> > You can bind the same icecast to multiple listen addresses (->
> > multipe
> > ports).
> >
> > Is there any specific reason you don't do it this way?
>
>  yes, i am running a relay of many streams of variable quantity, so i
>  cannot always rely on a source slot being available for my own uses - so
>  i want another instance on another port for my own use.
>  i dont want to simply raise the max sources as it will just fill up and
>  i only want to offer a relay of the amount of streams limited by my
>  config.
>
> >
> >
> >>  i thought if i had (along side the standard server files):
> >>
> >>  /etc/icecast2/icecast+.xml config file (with changed port number)
> >>  /etc/default/icecast+ pointing to new config file
> >>  new log files with 777 permissions (for the sake of testing)
> >
> > Setting permissions to 0777 anywhere on the systems is a *VERY BAD*
> > idea. I would wrote for OS and software refusing to work in such a
> > case.
>
>  ok fair enough... consider my wrists slapped ... like i say momentary
>  perms for test.
>  but yeah i am a dirty security risk taker ... i hang my head in shame.
>
>  cheers
>
>  rob
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131217/4695092d/attachment.htm>