PDA

View Full Version : how many clients for my slimserver ?



Alexis
2005-09-06, 01:39
Hello all
I did a search, but didn't find anything about that
I want to know how many clients can be supported by my server (6.2):
AMD 1800
256mo RAM
Windows server 2003
10 mbps upload


With Lame transcoding limit sets to 128 kbps, I can theoretically have ~ 80 clients
But I suppose slimserver will be overloaded before (not enough RAM I guess).
Do you have an idea of clients max number with this configuration ?

If you don't know, I will "open" my slimserver to you, and ask you to connect, in order to test.
thank you !

MrC
2005-09-06, 09:55
Hello all
256mo RAM
Windows server 2003
10 mbps upload

This is a pretty malnourished system - add some RAM food. And are you saying 10mbit connection to the net? I can't imagine its only a 10mbit ethernet card.



With Lame transcoding limit sets to 128 kbps, I can theoretically have ~ 80 clients
But I suppose slimserver will be overloaded before (not enough RAM I guess).

Not even close. There's TCP overhead (so a 10mbit connection is only good to about 8-9mbit at most), you won't be able to handle all those connections with your limited RAM and the system will be swapping constantly. With your slim.exe running and the two trasncoders (two per client), there will be a lot going on. And don't forget the web interface use - it heavily taxes the system, as does library scanning. With that system, if you can manage 15 connections responding well, I'd call it a day.


If you don't know, I will "open" my slimserver to you, and ask you to connect, in order to test.
thank you !
This should be interesting.

Alexis
2005-09-07, 09:55
Hello
Yes, it'a a 10mbit connection.
I think that 256mb RAM is effectively not enough. I have to heavily upgrade...
if I upgrade to 1Gb or 2Gb, how many clients can I expect to support ?

bludragon
2005-09-07, 10:06
I would guess that you will become cpu limited with around 25 clients. This would be very dependant on what quality setting lame is set to (not just bit rate), and would also depend (though to a lesser degree) on what format the music files on the server are in.

The only real way to find out, is to connect a bunch of clients, and see what cpu/mem usage looks like.

gorstk
2005-09-07, 10:37
Alexis wrote:
> Hello all
> I did a search, but didn't find anything about that
> I want to know how many clients can be supported by my server (6.2):
> AMD 1800
> 256mo RAM
> Windows server 2003
> 10 mbps upload
>
>
> With Lame transcoding limit sets to 128 kbps, I can theoretically have
> ~ 80 clients
> But I suppose slimserver will be overloaded before (not enough RAM I
> guess).
> Do you have an idea of clients max number with this configuration ?

If you converted all your MP3/flac files to 128kbps as a batch job then
the server won't be doing any transcoding, just serving the files.

This would not stretch the server as much?

MrC
2005-09-07, 10:54
True. And putting some low-profiles tires on a Hyundai seating 5 people with luggage might make it eek out another 1 MPH top speed. But it is still going to be an overloaded, under-performing box. :-)

dean
2005-09-07, 11:03
Yes, transcoding will definitely push the cpu and memory requirements
up significantly.

A pre-transcoded library of music will make the whole system run more
smoothly.

On Sep 7, 2005, at 10:37 AM, John Gorst wrote:

> Alexis wrote:
>
>> Hello all
>> I did a search, but didn't find anything about that
>> I want to know how many clients can be supported by my server (6.2):
>> AMD 1800
>> 256mo RAM
>> Windows server 2003
>> 10 mbps upload
>> With Lame transcoding limit sets to 128 kbps, I can theoretically
>> have
>> ~ 80 clients
>> But I suppose slimserver will be overloaded before (not enough RAM I
>> guess).
>> Do you have an idea of clients max number with this configuration ?
>>
>
> If you converted all your MP3/flac files to 128kbps as a batch job
> then the server won't be doing any transcoding, just serving the
> files.
>
> This would not stretch the server as much?
>
>

fuzzyT
2005-09-07, 11:32
MrC wrote:
> True. And putting some low-profiles tires on a Hyundai seating 5 people
> with luggage might make it eek out another 1 MPH top speed.

Maybe not the best analogy. Try this:

Taking two thousand pounds of bricks out of the trunk of said Hyundai.

That would speed it up. Only to original Hyundai acceleration
cababilities, true. But it would perform a darn sight better than it
did with those bricks in the trunk.

--rt

MrC
2005-09-07, 11:39
Taking two thousand pounds of bricks out of the trunk of said Hyundai.

He said nothing about removing Windows Server 2003. :-)

pfarrell
2005-09-07, 11:50
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 11:39 -0700, MrC wrote:
> fuzzyT Wrote:
> > Taking two thousand pounds of bricks out of the trunk of said Hyundai.
>
> He said nothing about removing Windows Server 2003. :-)

It is almost heresy to mention it on this list, since I love my
SqueezeBoxen and SlimServer, but not only would I remove Windows,
but I'd probably move to a pure Apache delivery system, if I wanted
to get lots of simultaneous clients.

Way back when I did this for a living, I ended up writing a
specialized webserver that handled security and delivered files.
Period. Got a lot of performance out of limited resources. That
was because even pure apache wasn't fast enough.

But when we got up to 40,000 CDs in ten formats, the RIAA
sent us a letter saying we had a "illegal collection"
IANAL, but I think the legal limits may be hit earlier
than you'd think. Of course, the PO has to put at least
a gig of memory in the servers to have a prayer.


--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

radish
2005-09-07, 16:39
AFAIK there is no legal "collection size", if you're allowing users to stream stuff under their control (i.e. they can select tracks) then you need to be licensed for distribution (expensive - see ITMS). It doesn't matter whether you're sharing 1 track or 100,000. If it's pure broadcast with no user control then it gets simpler (you're basically a radio station rather than a shop), you can get a statutory license (most of the major streaming stations do that). See, for example, the live365 FAQ on this: http://www.live365.com/licenses/faq/abs/ - they have blanket licenses which cover most of their users. The RIAA explain it in their usual friendly style here: http://www.riaa.com/issues/licensing/webcasting_faq.asp#conditions

Of course this is a technical forum not a legal one, hence why I've avoided the legal aspects of this thread thus far and assumed the OP knows what he/she is doing from a legal standpoint :)

pfarrell
2005-09-07, 23:04
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 16:39 -0700, radish wrote:
> AFAIK there is no legal "collection size", if you're allowing users to
> stream stuff under their control (i.e. they can select tracks) then you
> need to be licensed for distribution (expensive - see ITMS). It doesn't
> matter whether you're sharing 1 track or 100,000.

We had 40,000 CDs, about 400,000 tracks, plus or minus.
But we got the letter, negotiated, tried to get appropriate
licenses, and closed down the business rather than get sued
and lose our houses. And we were not "sharing" anything.
The RIAA meeting/negotiation that I went to had more lawyers than any
other collection that I've ever seen. They were all lawyers and
had outside council as well.


> If it's pure
> broadcast with no user control then it gets simpler (you're basically a
> radio station rather than a shop), you can get a statutory license (most
> of the major streaming stations do that).

Radio station-style, where the broadcaster determines what is played,
is clearly covered by the DMCA and is much more affordable.

As you say, this is wandering off topic. But since I got
burned after getting legal advice, my advice is to
get your own legal guidance from someone who specializes
in this stuff. An hour of such legal advice will cost
far more than the Original Poster's computer.


--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

radish
2005-09-08, 05:40
As you say, this is wandering off topic. But since I got
burned after getting legal advice, my advice is to
get your own legal guidance from someone who specializes
in this stuff. An hour of such legal advice will cost
far more than the Original Poster's computer.
Agreed 100%.