From: Jean-François M. <je...@ra...> - 2013-08-20 16:26:05
|
Hello On 20 Aug 2013, at 17:59, Alexander Dal Farra <ale...@dm...> wrote: > > Question with those issues is always WHAT you are up to put on redundancy > -- LS Instances? Icecast Servers? In our experience, > Encoding/Radioautomation cause much more CPU time hence are more likely to Liquidsoap instances are really stable. We are running a lot if instances (several thousands) and a few thousands of stations are 24/7. A single station could run several months without having any trouble at liquidsoap level. We never had troubles with liquidsoap itself. Sometimes hardware problem on the server but almost never LS since the 0.9.3 version :-) Our automation system is in house (we are providing an automation webapp to our 18,000 radio producers) and our LS scripts are using redundancy (ie if first server doesn't answer, it get the next track to a secondary server). > hang than the Icecast Server. I figure you are aggreating many > webradiostations. Are they pushing to your icecast servers or are you Nope, most of the radios are using our automation system. Some of them are using input.harbor to push the stream with a fallback on our automation system. In fact we are thinking to make it more robust. If a liquidsoap server has hardware problem : up to 260 stations impacted, automatic recovery system is handling that within the 60 seconds. If an automation server has hardware problem : nothing happens automatic system is working instantly. If a slave icecast server has hardware problem : up to 24,000 listeners impacted, automatic recovery system is handling that within the 60 seconds (putting the server out of the pool) If the master icecast has hardware problem : up to 160,000 (100%) listeners impacted and all radio. Currently, manually handled. Hardware problem doesn't occur frequently but I to figure out how to handle it the best way. TIA, JEf |