amount of people transmitting at once

[deadi]

it would be ideal if the server had a option to limit the amount of people talking at the same time. it could be all talk or 1 maybe 2 people talk.............that would surely fix some problems caused by saturation of bandwidth on low bandwidth servers.

[deadi]

looks as if noone is interested in my suggestion.......ok then.

[Peter]

Well,

there is a client side implementation of this: The Bandwidth management.
If you limit your download to 11 KBit/sec, then you can take two Celp 5.1 streams, but not 3, which means you will only hear 2 (two) players talking at once. (Even if 3 or more are talking)

[deadi]

that wouldnt be a effecient way to do it. how could you enforce it? it would have to be on the server side cuz the server is the side that has to transmit all the streams to everyone. this is where my concern is. the amount of traffic going out. if i could get a dsl line that had 768 up and 128 down, that would be ideal for a teamspeak server at home as a example.

[GMC-jimmy]

Instead of having the client (or server for that matter) cut off extra transmissions, rather have the server (or client) cache each transmission received from the clients, and play them back one at a time in the order received, that way noone gets cut off since that could be exploited as a potential DoS.

Then people won't get talked over, and noone would accidently talk over someone else.

And for those that prefer things the way they are, this could be a togglable option.

[SatanClaus]

I think there's already been a german thread where this was discussed...

and again, I take the position that it'll cause heavy problems if people just get cut off. Especially cause you have to be notified that you can't talk atm, because someone else does. (but how?)

so as long as this option stays in your clients you're the only one who can get blamed for not hearing others. As soon as it's server-side you can't talk to anyone anymore if there are a few people who're static.
Also if all that stuff gets cached and is played one after another, this would completely destroy your communication ingame... if there's a delay once, there is the possibility that this gets longer and longer and maybe you somewhen get 5 minutes old messages...

so I don't think that's a good option, even if you just want to use it on slow servers... just get / rent a faster server and have fun without any problems caused by restrictions...

cu
SatanClaus

[GMC-jimmy]

Originally posted by SatanClaus
Also if all that stuff gets cached and is played one after another, this would completely destroy your communication ingame... if there's a delay once, there is the possibility that this gets longer and longer and maybe you somewhen get 5 minutes old messages...

I wouldn't think anyone hosting a TS2 server on their home dialup would have enough bandwidth left over to play an online game where it would matter.

so I don't think that's a good option, even if you just want to use it on slow servers... just get / rent a faster server and have fun without any problems caused by restrictions...

So your suggestion to this legitimate problem is just to throw more money at it ?
That's not an option for some people.

cu
SatanClaus

--
GMC-jimmy

[aeroclown]

So your suggestion to this legitimate problem is just to throw more money at it ?
That's not an option for some people.



Actually friend typically to host a decent server you need a relativly high end system that can handle the cpu loads the the high burt data rates sent by a broadband modem. Dial-up is not a recommendable option for hosting. Although it will work, i can almost gurantee you that once you start game play the performance of one or the other we be severly impaired. You must remember setting up a server that uses even clep 5.1 means that every user that connects is aloted that much bandwidth for thier individual stream. Most Games use between 5 and 10 k a second. 10 k+ for a makes for better performance. You cannot expect to have a large volume of bandwith avalible on a dial-up connection, nor a static ip.

The idea of teamspeak was not to allow people to have cached streams or anything of that sort. teamspeak is designed to be a Real-time voice chat or relay system. Jut as if you and I where in a noisy room. Caching streams would be unexceptable in a teamplay game enviroment. The delay would compound itself for every message sent.Creating an infinitely increasing wait time in the cache, completely destorying Real-time communications. You must also remember that cacheing create even more hosting problems. Caching will increase the resources required to run the host as well as the errors that produced by the host. Running 18 users would mean cacheing 18 streams. Now lets say you are ina teamplay game where you have 18 users each talking and requesting help here or there, imagine the massive amounts of space and resources it would take to continusly cache 18 streams of data moving at speed between 5.1 k to 16.4 k a second. If you thought your servers crashed before, try that on for size and see how often it crashes while trying to send and fetch the next stram in line at the same time to continue playback.

I would suggest hosting teamspeak on a dedicated box as well. I have a dedicated webserver that servers sites, games, and teamspeak as well. Other than there is absolutely no software. Just an os and secondary software firewall.

[GMC-jimmy]

Originally posted by aeroclown


Actually friend typically to host a decent server you need a relativly high end system that can handle the cpu loads the the high burt data rates sent by a broadband modem. Dial-up is not a recommendable option for hosting. Although it will work, i can almost gurantee you that once you start game play the performance of one or the other we be severly impaired.

I agree completely that a dial-up host isn't the ideal place for a dedicated server. I myself am fortunate enough to have cable internet provided in my area. But being that TS2 doesn't allow peer-to-peer connections, sometimes a dial-up is exactly what you might be stuck with if you wish to do one-on-one or a small group communication and don't have anything better at your disposal. This isn't a likely scenario for a gaming enviroment. Some of us choose to use TS2 to help avoid long distance or intercontinental phone charges.

Inbetween games, ofcoarse. :)

You cannot expect to have a large volume of bandwith avalible on a dial-up connection, nor a static ip.

I also agree here as well with lack of nessesary bandwidth for larger groups of clients in excess of 3 or more, this is why I personally run a dedicated server on a shell with a redundant T3 connection, but I fail to see what having a static IP has anything to do with it. The TS2 test servers have a static IP as does the TS2 web site and even this forum.

You must also remember that cacheing create even more hosting problems. Caching will increase the resources required to run the host as well as the errors that produced by the host.

This is why I suggested it as a "toggable option" meaning it would leave the burden of providing those extra resources (of maybe 2 or 3 streams) to the individual wishing to employ it. I wouldn't imagine forcing this feature on people.

[aeroclown]

You cannot expect to have a large volume of bandwith avalible on a dial-up connection, nor a static ip


Look at that at that again. Did i say dial up had a static ip or not. As ¥øu can see i said does not provide a static ip, which typically is used for a stable and esaily accesible host. Unless i the event that u have dns service that supports a duc (Dynamic Update Client). Lol you mis understood my exact point was that dial up does not provide a static ip. ;)

[GMC-jimmy]

Sorry, my fault.
I had suspected that's what you meant, but I felt like it would be assuming too much.

I'm not trying to piss anyone off here, just trying to keep my point clear.

[aeroclown]

¥øu


See what macs are good for. I type that when i was a mac lab at school. Why it did that is beyond me.

[deadi]

i found somewhere to park my server but, they charge by bandwidth usage. i have a limit to the amount of transfer per month. if i go over i get charged. this is also where the limit would be imposed to 3 or 4 steams going out at once. bandwidth is cash!!!!!!!

[aeroclown]

eh . . . why not just host your own it dosnt take much and if u need to park a domain name goto www.no-ip.com and get a free sub domain that has DUC support.