Catching up, Scott...
In response to your questions:
I'm curious what numbers you've seen and which players seem to have a larger following?
No players have a larger following than Nullsoft's, but it's emphatically alleged by some propeller heads that Telos Systems' Audioactive player (a strict Fraunhofer derivative) is cleaner than Nullsoft's Winamp. Others may be highly regarded as well; I'll ask.
audioactive.com
Meanwhile, why not check out this technology and let us know what you think?
Also, where is this information from? I have been running a SHOUTcast server for a long time now for research purposes. Our tests have shown a mediocre NT box (75Mhz Pentium) handling 100+ streams. Bandwidth is more of a problem, but it appears equal to Real. I have a T1 and of course am limited to the bandwidth available to me no matter which solution I pick!
The information I presented pertains to bandwidth (sloppy presentation on my part) and is from Nullsoft's own SHOUTcast technical specs:
Pick a smart number of maxusers for your server. Calculate by taking the available bandwidth you have, multiplying by 0.9 to account for overhead, and dividing by the bitrate you want to serve at. For example, an ADSL connection @ 768kbps upstream * 0.9 / 24kbps ~= 29 maximum users. Again, set this number too high, and when you reach the limit of bandwidth ALL the streams will start to skip.
shoutcast.com
My understanding, however, is that Telos' Systems' Audioactive solution (also NT-based) is more bandwidth efficient and less resource constrained. (I'll get more detail from my geeks.) Meanwhile, based on your SHOUTcast experience, we look forward to your comments.
BAM |
