Hosts opinion of icecast stream

sleddog

How do hosts feel about audio streaming using Icecast? This is in relation to a project I'm working on. There would be no transcoding involved, so CPU usage should be low. The hours/week that it would be active are limited, so bandwidth wouldn't be excessive. 500GB/month would be plenty, might only use a quarter of that depending on the number of listeners.

Are hosts happy with Icecast audio streaming, or is something that creates issues?

Thanks!

sleddog

@Zen said:
The only resource it intensively uses by default is bandwidth and so long as you aren't locking up the entire pipe everything should be fine.

And I'd certainly ensure that didn't happen by limiting max listeners. It's a special-interest project so won't have international appeal

rm_

If the CPU usage is low, and you are within your bandwidth allocation... why do you even begin to think this is something hosts should "feel" anything about? What's next, creating threads "what hosts feel if I host a website about ponies" etc?)

taronyu

I have been running a stream for 4 months on a RN box. They never complained about anything.

@Joodle got more experience with this. And as far as I know he never had any problems either.

BlazeMuis

@taronyu said:
Joodle got more experience with this. And as far as I know he never had any problems either.

I only use shoutcast for my radio, no icecast xD

taronyu

@Joodle

I didn't noticed any difference in resource usage.

sleddog

@rm_ said:
If the CPU usage is low, and you are within your bandwidth allocation... why do you even begin to think this is something hosts should "feel" anything about? What's next, creating threads "what hosts feel if I host a website about ponies" etc?)

I'm merely asking for opinions about audio streaming, particularly from a provider point of view. It's research. My apologies if the thread offends you. FCYGTFO,TI