requirements

[snowman~NA~]

what are the system requirements for teamspeak 2 server?

[SatanClaus]

the server has very little requirements to run,
so I think that you at least need a pentium 1, Win98 SE / ME.

The need of processor and ram depends on how large your server is, but under 100 users at once you shouldn't experience any problems with let's say a 250 MHz Computer with 16 mb ram *g*

The normal bottleneck of every server is its connection to the internet, because DSL just will allow only 4 people to talk at once (with a good codec).

the formula for the traffic peaks are:

Server-Upstream:
[Number of people transmitting at the same time] * ([People in the channel] - 1) * [Used Codec]


Server-Downstream:
[Number of people transmitting at the same time] * [Used Codec]


If you have more than one channel, you have to sum up the traffic of every single channel.


cu
SatanClaus

[cephsrv]

so what this is saying is that if i have an old P2 300 MHZ (about) with 128 of ram running win2K server at a lan party it whould be able to handel ALOT of people?

and how much traffic can be handled at once over a single RJ45 jack at 100Mbps on a lan?

thanks

Walter

[Brain]

and how much traffic can be handled at once over a single RJ45 jack at 100Mbps on a lan?
Well, 100MBit/s :)
If you use Speex at 9.2kbit/s that would mean you could supply voice communication to 10869 people, theoretically.

[madcat]

Originally posted by Brain

Well, 100MBit/s :)
If you use Speex at 9.2kbit/s that would mean you could supply voice communication to 10869 people, theoretically.

why would you use 9.2kbit/s over lan?
i always use the highest 25Kb/s codec when i play with friends

i rather have an even higher codec, maybe MP3 or so, 128Kb/s or 320Kb/s. it would be very cool if teamspeak would support the mp3 codec!

why do you use a low codec on LAN?

[pim]

The other thing is, W2K is, of course depending on the config, hitting the internal memory quite hard. Especialy if it finds it too low, it will keep swapping pagefiles to disk, and effectively using the cpu for that

If you take a minimum linux config, like fedora in a trimmed down version, no GUI and leave the various "servers" out, the performance will improve dramatically and will imo be better than w2k

I've got a P-II-300 running dedicated TS under Fedora "light", on a 100 meg, and we havent been able to max out the little box

[pvtparts]

Another point here is that MP3 encoding compared to Speex etc takes litterally truckloads of CPU / Memory (comparatively remember)

So you'd need a much beefier server to handle it.

Ogg vorbis 45kbit/s codec sounds much (a hell of a lot) better at the same bitrate as MP3 but this too would need as much CPU / Memory.

Its all wishful thinking as these are not supported in TS. - Rightly so for Mp3: there are some sharp-edged patent issues. :eek:

[Brain]

Well, MP3 encoding isn't something that takes ages as in earlier times. You can encode at a decent speed with a decent quality and bandwidth, that's actually what happens if you use shoutcast to transmit what you play with WinAmp :)

[pvtparts]

I was getting more at the need for extra CPU and memory for the encoding.

A default shoutcast setup uses an enforced 5sec of latency to allow for iffy connections (but shout is a rather different protocol)

[Brain]

Of course. Shoutcast servers cache in advance to buffer for cutouts. After all it's designed to deliver music without annoying gaps at the expense of response time.
Teamspeak on the other hand is designed to deliver voice communication at the expense of buffering to achieve a low response time.

Why people want to use teamspeak to stream music is beyond my comprehension, but on the other hand you CAN trim our toe nails with a hedge clipper... It's not meant for the job, but with a little tweaking it works ;)