Slashdot Mirror
AOL Developing Cheap Switch for Audio Streaming
legaleagll writes: "According to a Fortune magazine article and a follow-up article on ZDNet, AOL is developing a cheap switch that can handle streaming audio for 10,000 users, versus current technology of 100 - 1,000 users per box depending on expense of system. The code name for the product is Ultravox and was apparantly spurred into existence because RealNetworks is now offering internet service for cheaper than AOL. I'm a little skeptical because I'm not sure how the use of an intelligent router would eliminate the need for the expensive systems to stream the audio. Wouldn't moving the software for streaming onto the router make for a more expensive router and still require the expense a box outside of the router anyway?"
"I'm not sure how the use of an intelligent router would eliminate the need for the expensive systems to stream the audio. Wouldn't moving the software for streaming onto the router make for a more expensive router and still require the expense a box outside of the router anyway?"
I'm assuming that for these big operations that have multiple sites for streaming, it works something like this: You have a source for the stream, which no end-users ever touch. The job for this machine is to feed the routers, which can be in various areas of the world or whatever. That way each router has a dedicated "in" stream so that it can feed the masses. In a smaller operation where multiple sites aren't needed, this piece of hardware isn't needed either, so this thing actually does save money for an establishment that can take advantage of it's potential.
"I'm not sure how the use of an intelligent router would eliminate the need for the expensive systems to stream the audio."
Currently 1000 users == 1000 streams. An intelligent switch looks at the content, says broadcast one stream to the 1000 users. Sounds simple. Not, though. Check articles on "Layer 4" switches.
I'm not sure how the use of an intelligent router would eliminate the need for the expensive systems to stream the audio. Wouldn't moving the software for streaming onto the router make for a more expensive router and still require the expense a box outside of the router anyway?
My guess? This is a smart cacheing system.
The ZDnet article makes much reference to bandwidth congestion as a major stumbling block to streaming media. As a user will always get the same data back when requesting a media stream, you could set up smart router/proxies to cache, oh, the first few blocks of all media clips and the entire contents of the last N requested clips (up to a space limit). Assuming many users are listening to the same clip in the same general timeframe, you only have to stream the clip to the cacheing router once (instead of many times), saving bandwidth and load on your source box. Non-media traffic is routed as usual.
Or this could be something completely different. But a smart router/transparent proxy type of deal seems to be the most beneficial thing to develop.
While niether article has anything technical I have worked in this industry for awhile now. I'm going to assume some things first off this is primarly for live streams only or simulated live as a router has no place mucking with vod streams it dosent have the memory to help besides some QOS things. OK now assuming it's live the best way to get the data out is multicast it but unfortunatly the Tier 1 ISP's cant figure out how to bill for Mcast and it dosent reach far enough like past an ISP and nearly never to anything like dialup or broadband it's a college toy. Now insert a router that can take multicast live streams and do a unicast conversion (it's not much harder than nat and just about everything that can load Cisco IOS can run NAT) Now that changes the math on the head end the servers only need to support the stream 1 time and the additional connections for authentication (non scalable multicast as real would term it) this would be a wonderfull thing to the source people and the end user (especialy if the cable head ends can convert back to multicast) and AOL has the size to get the teir 1's to play ball AOL is a huge installed base.
But like I said this is all conjecture on my part. It may just be them whalking the arrowpoint boxes again they are routers of sorts (load ballancers realy) that can accept drive space.
No sir I dont like it.
Please note: the above is "sarcasm" ...
Actually the above is satire. I would not qualify it as sarcasm since it's lame. Hell it's not even funny satire (despite what the mods think).
I am not a streaming media expert but I do know routers and gateways.
This could speed up streaming media because the bigest limitation on SM is handling very large IP stacks of high-bandwidth connections. Dedicated hardware which does not have the overhead of OS and general-purpose software can handle a lot more connections. In addition, it would probably run cooler and fit into a 1U rackspace.
Those features should make it desireable to any ISP who provides streaming media.
Throw in 4GB of ram and each 1U server could probably handle most if not all of the average ISP's SM content cached.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Some of you guys might want to look at VirginRadio's website (www.VirginRadio.com), they have a broadband stream (you've got to put in a password to access it, free reg though). The twist is, it's a peer to peer stream, they use a plugin by AllCast.
Apparently, what this plugin does is contact the server and obtain a list of listeners, it then find a listener with atleast a 100kbs upload capacity and connects to them, receiving their stream from them. You'd think there'd be lots of problems.. e.g, it'd be slow, you'd get your bandwidth sucked away, you'd get cut off randomly. Well.. no. I've been listenening for about three days now, i've been cut off only twice in that time and i've had somebody else connected to me most of that time as well and I didn't even notice it till I looked at my upload stats later in the day.
I'll put my money on this being the way to get around the problem, why does the server need to be the one to be dishing out all the bandwith? Why doesn't the server just serve the streams to other users, who in turn serve it to other users. Fairs fair.
SysWear - Geek T-shirts (UK/Europe)
Similar concept, but already exists, and does the same thing with video.