Re: icecast relay server performance testing
"Popov, Zahar" <[email protected]> Fri, 10 Jun 2016 20:00:15 +0900
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.audio.icecast.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Philipp Thank you for chiming in. The only reason i use the -kh fork is because it seemed to be more recent. I had this performance issue with the regular version and tried the fork. I realize that the problem can be with the TCP stack parameters. I had no problem getting about 800Mbps between these machines when using iperf. Certainly, the workload completely different, but at least i know that the TCP stack is somewhat operational. Do you happen to know specifically what’s broken? I don’t have access to a physical data center this is why i would like to use either EC2 or Azure. thanks! —zahar > On Jun 10, 2016, at 7:09 PM, Philipp Schafft <[email protected]> wrote: > > Good noon, > > On Fri, 2016-06-10 at 12:50 +0900, Zahar Popov wrote: >> Hello >> I'm trying to measure the performance of the icecast relay server on >> 64kbps streams. >> >> The server is running in AWS [...]. I'm using the icecast-kh fork. >> [...] >> I'm able to go up to around 9K simultaneous connections to the server >> (from two machines). [...] > > First: -kh is a independent fork. So I can hardly speak for it. This > answer is completely based on the (often wrong) assumption that in this > case behaves exactly like the official Icecast2 in any stable and > supported version. > > >> It doesn't matter if i run one or more instances of the relay server, >> the limit seems to be OS global so when one instance is running with >> 5K connections and the other instance is getting close to 4K >> connections they both start dropping connections. >> >> I assume that there is some other setting of the stack that i didn't >> configure so i was wondering if anybody was able to run a few dozens >> of thousands of connections on one server. > > This should give you the hint: It's not a problem of Icecast2 as it > doesn't depend on the processes. > > Basically: AWS is well known for their broken TCP stack. There is no > reason to run Icecast2 on AWS. Just use a normal server and be fine. > What you see above is just AWS's maximum connection limit per instance > or something. (But there are more problems known with AWS's TCP stack > that affect real world deployments of Icecast2.) > > > Have a nice day! > > -- > Philipp. > (Rah of PH2) _______________________________________________ Icecast-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/icecast-dev