To everybody who has network issues with the link I posted. Please give me
details like: browser, flash player version, firewalls, etc. Network
failures aren't logged if you can't reach the server.

Mark, the problem is the I/O that's why I'm posting this. But I'm glad that
FMS has the same problem ;).

The only solution I can think about is the creation of a system which
divides the load over multiple disks/systems. Expensive but effective.

On 6/19/07, Mark de Jong [NetMasters BV] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi Martijn,

Be sure to check out the I/O of the server. We've had the same issues on a
edge-server (yes, edge/origin) from a client from us and I/O was the
bottleneck for this. They have a lot of seeking (and hundreds of files)
and
it was VERY I/O intensive. I don't now how Red5 handles this but it is
worth
checking this out first before going on to next steps.

Kind regards,

Mark de Jong

________________________________

Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens
Martijn van Beek
Verzonden: maandag 18 juni 2007 10:32
Aan: [email protected]
Onderwerp: Re: [Red5] Load balancing for live streams


I'm not streaming live data but stored flv movies. And the problem then
appears when a lot of people access the file at the same time but all at a
different position (in time).


On 6/17/07, Steven Gong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

        Orion,


        On 6/17/07, Orion Letizi < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:


                While it may be impractical to cluster the actual AV data
in
the stream,
                perhaps the current state (metadata) of the stream could
be
clustered so
                that, as long as the AV data was available on disk at each
server, any
                server could pick up the stream and start serving it based
on the metadata
                about the stream (e.g., offset into the data file, current
position of
                buffers, stuff like that).


        Yep, that's true if the VOD streaming is pulled by the client. But
as we also need to track the client buffer, we are using a scheduled task
to
push the VOD content to the client.

        I was thinking of sharing the connection buffer across the cluster
if the connection is of type RTMPTConnection. When the connection is of
type
RTMPT, we use a buffer for each connection to save the packets that will
be
sent to the client. These packets includes AV packets, RSO packets,
invocation result etc. When the client's request is distributed to one of
the node, the server retrieves packets in the buffer and sends to the
client. So all kinds of services, regardless of VOD, Live or RSO, can be
shared without the need to share the whole connection or stream objects.

        What do you think?




                Of course, I share Steve Harris's lack of knowledge of the
internals of
                Red5, so my observation might be dumb, nonsensical, or
both
for which I
                apologize in advance.


                Steve,

                On 6/16/07, sharrissf < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  > wrote:
                >
                >
                > Assuming the stream fits in memory and just has multiple
people accessing
                > it
                > I suspect it could be clustered with Terracotta. Though
I
would need to
                > know
                > more details to know for sure as I'm not that familiar
with how they work
                > and are implemented. My thinking is that everyone in
this
case is
                > essentially sharing the same stream so really only one
instance ends up in
                > each jvm and all the meta-data associated with each user
is only in the
                > jvm
                > where the person is connected.


                The live stream is pushed to the subscribers just like
what
Remote
                SharedObject does so if configured properly I believe it
can
be clustered by
                TC. But I doubt that this is practically realistic because
                (1) The amount of AV data is much bigger than that of RSO.
So much more data
                will be transfered across the nodes.
                (2) When the amount of data arises, the transfer latency
will also arise and
                the real time requirement of live streaming is
compromised.

                Anyway we can implement it technically and whether it's
practical will be
                decided by the application.

                --
                View this message in context:

http://www.nabble.com/Load-balancing-for-live-streams-tf3926799.html#a111556
12
                Sent from the Red5 - English mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.


                _______________________________________________
                Red5 mailing list
                [email protected]
                http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org





        --
        I cannot tell why this heart languishes in silence. It is for
small
needs it never asks, or knows or remembers.  -- Tagore

        Best Regards
        Steven Gong

        _______________________________________________
        Red5 mailing list
        [email protected]
        http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org






_______________________________________________
Red5 mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org

_______________________________________________
Red5 mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org

Reply via email to