Shoucast Update more Frequent?

[jalba]

Ive noticed that "Steamcast" updates their site very frequenly because i see the number of listers change every single time i refresh the page.

Why can shoutcast be like that.
I understand that there are many stations in shoutcast and updating would just create problems, but i think that updating every 5 minutes is too long for a station. You might be playing a very popular song and it might skip it by the next time it updates.

Is this in any future plans for Shoucast website to shorten their update time from 5 minutes to anything less?

Thanks

[Jay]

It is doubtful. Steamcast and icecast are able to allow more frequent updates due to the much lower size of their respective db's. If either icecast or steamcast saw 6000 servers at once they would respectively increase their touch times.

Just do the math 6000 server's all touching at a frequency of 1 minute that is 6000 hits per minute and each one of those hits equates to no revenue. Expanding this out 6000 * 60 = 360,000 hits per hour * 24 = 8,640,000 per day (more then most sites see in a month) * 30 = 259,200,000 hits per month, each touch message accounts for approx 500 bytes of data 129,600,000,000 Bytes per month. I dunno know about you but that is alot of traffic and alot of transit data.

What needs to happen is a redesign of the yp mechnism to offload this onto users and individual servers.

[jalba]

Well yea i know its alot it was just a simple suggestion, but now i see why that doesnt happen. Oh well, i guess mainly radio stations that have big companies and stream 24/7 should stay with shoutcast others should go to Steamcast since they only have 3 pages, and even if you just started streaming your still close to the beginning since they only have 3 pages of radio streams.

Shoutcast is good, but only good for people with capabilities to stream 24/7.

[karlH]

Originally posted by KXRM
It is doubtful. Steamcast and icecast are able to allow more frequent updates due to the much lower size of their respective db's. If either icecast or steamcast saw 6000 servers at once they would respectively increase their touch times.

icecast updates on metadata changes immediately, so having a larger update cycle is not really a problem.

karl.

[Jay]

well I think you would see problems with that sort of updating as you scale out to more and more servers.

[DJ AmPs]

Originally posted by KXRM
[B]129,600,000,000 Bytes per month. I dunno know about you but that is alot of traffic and alot of transit data.

Not really... 129 gigabytes at $0.10/gig (or even less considering AOL owns part of the internet) that's $12.90 in traffic. By Mbps, it's less than half a meg, and compared to Uvox traffic, it's literally a drop in the bucket.

I think the biggest expense is CPU time / IO hits on the database server(s).

[Jay]

I pointed that out to show that icecast and steamcast are not magically different. Also that figure doesn't include regular webtraffic which will account for much more. Yes, the real problem is the database.