View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Radio-ultra.com Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:20 am Post subject: Realy problem |
|
|
I had a master server and the relaying server ... if the master server is stoped ... the relaying server does not take the mount point's again ... please somebody tell me what is this problem becouse it is very anoing thank's ... and another question is somone hwo hase a good connection becouse i have only metro ... thanks whaiting mail on office@radio-ultra.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
karlH Code Warrior
Joined: 13 Jun 2005 Posts: 5476 Location: UK
|
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:55 am Post subject: Re: Realy problem |
|
|
Radio-ultra.com wrote: |
I had a master server and the relaying server ... if the master server is stoped ... the relaying server does not take the mount point's again ... please somebody tell me what is this problem becouse it is very anoing thank's ... and another question is somone hwo hase a good connection becouse i have only metro ... thanks whaiting mail on office@radio-ultra.com |
The slave should be polling the master server on regular intervals, 2 mins is the default but you can override that with master-update-interval. Obviously if the master is not running at all then the relays won't work on the slave. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Radio-ultra.com Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok i understand but if the master is off for let's say 3 minutes and then work's again the relay server dont take the mountpoint's again i must say the master server stops due network problem no cable something like this .
The interval is changed for 60 seconds. but over 10 minutes still nothing i really don't undestand why the relay server stop's checking for moutpoins this is really the problem thank's ! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
karlH Code Warrior
Joined: 13 Jun 2005 Posts: 5476 Location: UK
|
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Radio-ultra.com wrote: |
Ok i understand but if the master is off for let's say 3 minutes and then work's again the relay server dont take the mountpoint's again i must say the master server stops due network problem no cable something like this .
The interval is changed for 60 seconds. but over 10 minutes still nothing i really don't undestand why the relay server stop's checking for moutpoins this is really the problem thank's ! |
Without the specific details I cannot comment on much, as always, the error log should show the state of things. You should see something about the slave getting a master list, maybe that is failing, or it may be it is empty, it's just not clear from what you have given so far.
karl. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ktwenty Guest
|
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:51 pm Post subject: Same Problem, plus a new one |
|
|
I too have had the slaves not update from the master. I have 1 master and 9 slaves, occasionally, I take the master down for updates and some of the slaves mount points do not release. Also, on the new version 2.3, I cannot get relaying to work at all. I have upgraded all the slaves to 2.3 as well, and it still won't work. I'm using the same icecast.xml files that were working on 2.2. I backreved the master to 2.2 and it started working again. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
karlH Code Warrior
Joined: 13 Jun 2005 Posts: 5476 Location: UK
|
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: Same Problem, plus a new one |
|
|
ktwenty wrote: |
I too have had the slaves not update from the master. I have 1 master and 9 slaves, occasionally, I take the master down for updates and some of the slaves mount points do not release. Also, on the new version 2.3, I cannot get relaying to work at all. I have upgraded all the slaves to 2.3 as well, and it still won't work. I'm using the same icecast.xml files that were working on 2.2. I backreved the master to 2.2 and it started working again. |
Without the xml or log to work on I can only guess, in 2.3 the list (as seen by the slaves) is derived from the mount list not the source list (so that fallback handling works), if you don't have mount tags for a stream on the master then it won't appear on the list that slaves get. While that has changed from 2.2, you really should have a mount for 2.2 as well if only to specify the max listeners.
karl. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anonymous Guest
|
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
It appears the problem is in the /admin/streamlist.txt URL that the relays check on the master. On the master server this is showing up empty, even when there are relays definied. My server has 19 relays, none of them hidden. I have also tested whether relaying-on-demand affects this or not and it has no effect.
Has the behaviour for the streamlist.txt changed to not list relay mountpoints? I am currently using Icecast 2.1-kh and that lists the relays in streamlist.txt |
|
Back to top |
|
|
karlH Code Warrior
Joined: 13 Jun 2005 Posts: 5476 Location: UK
|
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The behaviour has changed from 2.2 and earlier in that <mount> tags for the source client and/or relays need to be defined in the master xml. If those are missing then the streamlist.txt won't see them. You are correct in that setting hidden will also prevent them from showing.
BTW 2.1-kh is quite old now, the latest is 2.3-kh1. Let me know of any specifics if the issue continues
karl. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anonymous Guest
|
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
2.1-kh was the only option for relays-on-demand before 2.3.
So you're saying that <relay> definitions aren't exported to streamlist.txt? But that there needs to be a <mount> definition with only a name for each relay? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
karlH Code Warrior
Joined: 13 Jun 2005 Posts: 5476 Location: UK
|
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Speedster wrote: |
2.1-kh was the only option for relays-on-demand before 2.3.
So you're saying that <relay> definitions aren't exported to streamlist.txt? But that there needs to be a <mount> definition with only a name for each relay? |
yes, as mentioned before, the streamlist goes through the mount list (not the relay list) to determine what to show. The actual mount definition can be as sparse as you want but you'll need the mount-name. Eventually I suspect something like regular expressions or similar could be used to match a range of mountpoints so that multiple <mount> tags won't be needed, but that needs to be worked on more.
karl. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anonymous Guest
|
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As far as I can judge the issue persists in 2.3.1. While I understand that a workaround exists by specifying the individual <mount> tags in the master's configuration file, the way it works is not quite what the documentation suggests.
from http://www.icecast.org/docs/icecast-2.3.1/icecast2_config_file.html
Online docs wrote: |
Master Relay
The following diagram shows the basics of doing a Master relay. Note that Server 1 is configured with the <master-server>, <master-server-port>, etc settings and Server 2 is the server from which Server 1 will pull all attached mountpoints and relay them. Using a Master Server relay, ALL mountpoints on Server 2 will be relayed. If only specific mountpoints need to be relayed, then you must configure Server 1 as a "Specific Mountpoint Relay". Both Master server relays and Specific Mountpoint relays begin their "relaying" when the Server is started. |
If the behaviour has been changed as to relay only those mountpoints that are being configured using a <mount> tag in the master server's config file, it should be pointed out in the docs.
I suggest however the previous behaviour be restored instead. I for one have a master server with mountpoint names that can't always be configured, as the sources are free to choose them "on-the-fly". I still would like to be able to relay all of them. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ktwenty Guest
|
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:45 pm Post subject: Relaying |
|
|
I would tend to agree. I also have streams that connect as whatever they want, and liked the old way of it just relaying the streams as is. Is this something that can be "re-enabled" in the 2.3.1 version? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|