Jump to content

Hardware


Recommended Posts

100 concurrent streams?

I figure this is no home installation. 

Edited by Sammy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sammy no its not a home installation

We have a WAN setup in our community where we game against each other and do file sharing all offline. I was wondering can i setup a dedicated emby server/pc that will stream to 100 - 200 concurrent streams without buffering instead of having just files constantly being copied from my pc . Emby has a much more clean look and its easy to use which means everyone will be able to use it and i can prevent the copying and enjoy my content everywhere in our community

Link to post
Share on other sites
sooty234

If you disallow transcoding and only have direct playing, the only real issue you have would be bandwidth, both network and drive reads. Network being the biggest issue. That's a lot of upstream. If you allow transcoding, then you have much bigger issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rbjtech
5 hours ago, EarlF82 said:

The files will all be mp4 1080p max 

 

 

Take some very crude numbers - from a network perspective - you have 9000 Mbit/s to play with - dived by 200 streams = 45 Mbit/sec per stream = Achievable.

Disk I/O is probably your greatest problem, followed by CPU.

Not much of a benchmark, but I had 10 streams running using 400 Mbit/s worth of LAN traffic (so average of 40 Mbit/sec per user) and while the disk I/O was ok (it was across multiple platters), the CPU was @ 90% - but then again this was on an original 4 core i5 750 (10 year old CPU) ... 

I think they only way you are going to know for sure is to benchmark what you have and then extrapolate it out to see where your bottlenecks are (in theory) and then do a proof of concept.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, rbjtech said:

 

Take some very crude numbers - from a network perspective - you have 9000 Mbit/s to play with - dived by 200 streams = 45 Mbit/sec per stream = Achievable.

Disk I/O is probably your greatest problem, followed by CPU.

Not much of a benchmark, but I had 10 streams running using 400 Mbit/s worth of LAN traffic (so average of 40 Mbit/sec per user) and while the disk I/O was ok (it was across multiple platters), the CPU was @ 90% - but then again this was on an original 4 core i5 750 (10 year old CPU) ... 

I think they only way you are going to know for sure is to benchmark what you have and then extrapolate it out to see where your bottlenecks are (in theory) and then do a proof of concept.

 

I was thinking of 4 * 14tb hdds (WD RED),

1 * 14TB all movies, doccies, music and reality shows (then duplicate everything on a second 14tb) 

1 * 14tb all tv shows (then duplicate everything on a second 14tb) 

Or 

 

8 * 8Tb and split everything across the drives with duplicates so users can access the same file but from a different drive 

That should atleast easr the strain on tgr drives. 

For cpu and gpu i am still tirn between the amd and the intel, same with the gpu. 

Rtx4000 or Rtx 3080

3950x or i9 10900k

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
rbjtech

You need to stripe the data across as many physical disks as possible to get the I/O numbers you are talking about.  

You need to be direct playing only so the GPU is irrelevant - you don't need one.  If you need to transcode, then forget it without a large server farm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that the gpu would be irrelevant, does that apply to the cpu aswell. And would raid 10 not work as a load balancer also

Link to post
Share on other sites
EarlF82

Do we still need a gpu if we do direct streaming, there will be no transcoding etc.. All files will be converted to mp4.. So as posted earlier I think the biggest issue will be bandwidth and hdd load balancing

Link to post
Share on other sites
BAlGaInTl
1 hour ago, EarlF82 said:

Do we still need a gpu if we do direct streaming, there will be no transcoding etc.. All files will be converted to mp4.. So as posted earlier I think the biggest issue will be bandwidth and hdd load balancing

If there is no transcoding, you won't need a GPU.

I would definitely take the AMD 3950X over the Intel for the extra cores/threads (16/32 vs 10/20).

That number of concurrent streams is not an easy ask though.  You'll probably also have to get with Emby support to get a custom license.  I'm pretty sure you will blow through the normal limits pretty quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...