View Full Version : Recommendations on Dedi-Server.

1st November 2006, 18:58
Hi guys,

Right, im facing a little dilemma.. Im starting a new station up which is going to have 1 24 hour live station with presenters round the clock etc.. and a few different genre channels of just music playing round the clock.

I guess my question is, which is going to be the best way to do this? Purchase a Windows 2003 dedi-server or a Linux one?

I'm leaning more towards windows at the moment because it's going to be able to run more than one copy of a broadcaster at once, with each broadcaster playing out a different genre of music to the shoutcast server.

But, if there is linux alternative i'd love to do it this way.

I'm not a fan of windows to be honest, and would like to run everything on linux, the only problem is, finding a way to stream to the shoutcast servers in linux.

Obviously having computers running in our studio connected to the server isn't really an option as it takes up too much of our bandwidth..

Any ideas would be gratefully welcomed :)



I've tried sc_trans, but find that there are problems with the bitrates on certian files, and i cannot garuntee that all of our music will be the same bitrate.

Thanks again.

1st November 2006, 21:14
well, you can do all of what you want on linux --- you just need to know how.

Personally, I believe *nix box is best suited at serving people. MS boxes are best at getting that presentation and 5 million page excel sheet made on time.

Having said that. I run servers on both. The linux box I have never had any problems with that I did not inadvertantly cause (mainly because I am an idiot). The MS box I have never had exceptional problems with (the box does freeze once and a blue moon and I believe this to be caused by poor memory managment).

On a network side of things, you can suqeeze the last drop of blood out of a *nix box because they handle networking tasks more efficiently than a MS box. However, the gain you get is not something like a MS box can host 25 and a *nix box could host 30 with the same line. More like if your line can support 24.999999 users, I would round down for MS and up for *nix.

All of that aside, you really ought to be using what you know the best. The positives and negatives of each OS really do not amount to mountains when it comes to SHOUTcast...

Hope this helps.

Damn. I really need to read as well. you can stream to the servers on linux is you use something like MuSE ( http://muse.dyne.org/ ) ... though I thought sc_trans could also do this if you gave it the IP of dnas.... I could be wrong though.

1st November 2006, 21:22
Hey fc*uk,

Thanks for your reply. It's helped quite a bit with my decision. :)

As i said, i'd love to stick to linux, but the problem being im not sure how im going to be able to stream so many channels at once..

With a windows box, i could imagine possibly setting up sam and running say 5 instances of it with a different playlist of music in each instance, and streaming them to shoutcast servers that are setup on the same machine.

But i fail to see how to do this with linux :( sc_trans doesnt work very well for me as aforementioned.

What does everyone think?



1st November 2006, 21:59
Well, it will work the way you described using windows. You are correct about linux and sc_trans. To get that job done in linux you would need to check out MuSE and you would stream to sc_serv.

MuSE actually comes on a bootable CD (dyne:bolic) that you could download and take a look at as a minimally invasive alternative. Also avoids the cost of SAM3...

2nd November 2006, 02:34
to stream multiple servers on the same box, you'll just need to create a seperate sc_serv.conf for each server, when you goto run the command simply use the alternate sc_serv.conf file as an argument. i.e. :

./sc_serv alternate_station.conf


Sorry, just read that you wanted to BROADCAST from linux...sorry.

2nd November 2006, 10:18
We run a lot of Windows 2003 servers which have SHOUTcast, Icecast, Windows Media Services, SAM and various other things.

Despite what people say - from our experience, I can assure you that it is a highly powerful and stable OS.

13th November 2006, 13:08
Right, I chose the Windows 2003 server, and it seems to be working okay.. I could of done with upping the processor speed a little, or maybe choosing to have more RAM.

I've noticed that logging into Terminal Services is really slow ever since i'm running multiple versions of sam, WMS and SHOUTcast.

But, it's going okay for now... Thank you all for your help, it's really appreciated..



13th November 2006, 13:32
We've been able to cram 5 or more SAM instances on our bottom-end (relatively speaking) AMD Opteron 170's. You need a true Dual-Core (no Celery's) processor and lots of RAM.

15th November 2006, 19:14
Keep checking your task manager to monitor system utilization.

I also recommend installing DU Meter which activly monitors bandwidth usage (www.dumeter.com)