Martijn, On 6/19/07, Martijn van Beek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 ;).
I guess that you are referring to FMS without clustering. The Edge/Origin solution of FMS provides a cache system on Edge so that the VOD can be directly distributed to clients on Edge, thus alleviate the load from Storage server accessed by Origin. 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
-- 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
