Forum


Notice to all users

We are migrating towards a new forum system located at community.teamspeak.com, as such this forum will become read-only on January 29, 2020

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21
  1. #1
    Join Date
    February 2010
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    34

    Channel/server option/permission for max speaking clients

    Is it feasible to add a permission/option in either the server or individual channels that limits how many simultaneous users can be talking at once? This would alleviate many of my bandwidth issues without my current workarounds of moderating channels. The min clients before silence option comes close, but not really ideal. Besides I can think of few scenarios where I would ever want for than 10 people talking at once, 5 is even less than ideal.

    To expand on this there could be some sort of way to prioritize based on talk power. If the limit for simultaneous talkers is hit, this with higher talk power could bump someone with a lower power.

    Seems like it could either be simple, or impossible. Hoping for the former.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    61
    I think there is no way to add this option because only one user have a problem with Bandwidth.

    You can moderate the channel and force push to talk. This reduce the amount of talking players.

    If you want the lead in a huge Raid/or group of people use Priority Speaker .

    You can also set a hotkey (options > hotkey > Show Advanced Action) "Revoke All and Grant Next User Talk Power" to allow only one person talk, then remove talkpower and grand next person Talk rights.

    Look_Up

  3. #3
    Join Date
    February 2010
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    34
    This isn't about a client's bandwidth, this is about the server's bandwidth. Client side bandwidth is rarely an issue. If you get 10-15 people who suddenly chime in all at once with something like 45 people in a channel it can have a detrimental affect on the server as a whole, especially for those of us hosting locally.

    We often do enforce ptt, but that has a very minimal impact on upstream bandwidth. We also utilize priority speakers during our events, but again that has even less impact on bandwidth. This is less about limiting speakers (that's really just a nice side effect) and more about limiting the impact on my upstream.

    I've taken a number of actions already to reduce the potential to overload my upstream but an option limiting simultaneous voice streams in a populated channel would keep things more ordered and keep from saturating upstream.

    There are alternatives that can help, but this option seems, to me at least, to offer a solution to bandwidth problems on self hosted servers.

    I host our 64 person licensed server on a 105/25Mbit connection, that's enough bandwidth about 95% of the time, an option like this would make sure our server keeps chugging closer to 100% of the time.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    February 2010
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    34
    Bump to the top. Any feedback from development?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    September 2012
    Posts
    6,079
    A server is meant to run at a datacenter, at which bandwidth is not usually an issue. Besides if you're having issues with a 25MiB/sec connection, then there is some serious other stuff going on, eating up bandwidth. Even at the most wasteful possible codec settings each client only takes about 14 KiB/sec. With 5 people talking simultaneously it would still take more than 350 people to saturate that connection.
    With realistic codec settings, each client is only about 8 KiB/sec and as such even with 10 clients talking simultaneously it would still take a total of 321 people in the same channel to saturate that connection.
    When sending PMs please make sure to include a reference link to the thread in question in the body of your message.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    185
    If you got VDSL2 connection you can get 25Mb/s download but your upload is limited to 4-5mb/s. Use TS3 server at home without fiber is not a really good idea, your connection can fluctuate for many reason (like roadworks).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    September 2012
    Posts
    6,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Toine View Post
    If you got VDSL2 connection you can get 25Mb/s download but your upload is limited to 4-5mb/s.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brandito View Post
    I host our 64 person licensed server on a 105/25Mbit connection
    He specified his connection
    Besides:
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    A server is meant to run at a datacenter, at which bandwidth is not usually an issue.
    When sending PMs please make sure to include a reference link to the thread in question in the body of your message.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    February 2010
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    A server is meant to run at a datacenter, at which bandwidth is not usually an issue. Besides if you're having issues with a 25MiB/sec connection, then there is some serious other stuff going on, eating up bandwidth. Even at the most wasteful possible codec settings each client only takes about 14 KiB/sec. With 5 people talking simultaneously it would still take more than 350 people to saturate that connection.
    With realistic codec settings, each client is only about 8 KiB/sec and as such even with 10 clients talking simultaneously it would still take a total of 321 people in the same channel to saturate that connection.
    My connection upstream is 25mbit not 25MB. Your example of 5 people talking to 350 would require at least 58mbit of upstream using opus at level 5. My connection handles 70+ people fine as long as they're spread out decently among channels. The problem occurs when we gather in one place to announce prize winners for our Virtual Lan Parties. If my request is as simple as adding a new permission I feel it would eliminate problems for those of us who prefer to host our own servers. We don't like the idea of renting a server every month and having less control over our server. We're still paying customers, we recently upgraded our AAL to 128 slots to accommodate new members. I don't see why Teamspeak would allow for NPL and AAL licences if they didn't support people self hosting.

    If my request requires major work then I understand not considering it, otherwise it'd be a much appreciated addition.

    Like I said, with additional measure's we've taken my connection is fine 99% of the time to host, it's just those rare occasions where suddenly 12-15 people start talking in a 40+ person channel we get major packet loss and it's hard to recover. That problem is mostly solved, but this added permission or option would eliminate the chance of that ever happening.

    edit: Just realized this request was rejected without anyone even fully understanding the problem or even explaining why it would be rejected. Very nice customer service guys!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    August 2013
    Posts
    56
    We don't like the idea of renting a server every month and having less control over our server.
    If you rent a dedicated/VPS server you will still have complete control over your teamspeak 3 server.

    I don't see why Teamspeak would allow for NPL and AAL licences if they didn't support people self hosting.
    AAL licences come in handy when you have a large community that requires donations/advertisement to stay online.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    February 2010
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by H3LLFIRE View Post
    If you rent a dedicated/VPS server you will still have complete control over your teamspeak 3 server.


    AAL licences come in handy when you have a large community that requires donations/advertisement to stay online.
    You only have whatever control the rental service allows you. I want file system access, I want to be able to migrate our server wherever I like, when I like, that's not something renting a server allows us.

    I know the difference between an AAL and NPL licence, I'm wondering why those of us with AAL licences are not afforded the same considerations as those who chose to rent. Don't sell me an AAL and then suggest that I should be renting a server because you don't understand the nature of my request, or how to calculate bandwidth, or the difference between bits and bytes.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    317
    Well, why not change the talk power in those 40 man channels so that only the announcers have permission to talk?

    Anyway there are really cheap providers out there that you can host your server on.
    I know for example one that sets to yearly $12 and is very good, and is also enough for ts3 server.
    For my ts3 server I pay around $10 a month which is ok.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    September 2012
    Posts
    6,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Brandito View Post
    You only have whatever control the rental service allows you. I want file system access, I want to be able to migrate our server wherever I like, when I like, that's not something renting a server allows us.

    I know the difference between an AAL and NPL licence, I'm wondering why those of us with AAL licences are not afforded the same considerations as those who chose to rent. Don't sell me an AAL and then suggest that I should be renting a server because you don't understand the nature of my request, or how to calculate bandwidth, or the difference between bits and bytes.
    While I might have forgotten to divide above figures by 8, I do very well understand. However what you don't seem to understand is that h3llfire wasn't suggesting renting a TS server but an entire machine (or part thereof in case of VPS), which does give you file system access as well as about the same control you have when hosting locally without the bandwidth limitations of a home internet connection. Well at least it does if you don't choose some weird provider.

    In any case, we won't be implementing this suggestion.
    When sending PMs please make sure to include a reference link to the thread in question in the body of your message.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    June 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Brandito View Post
    Your example of 5 people talking to 350
    [...]
    bla
    [...]
    we recently upgraded our AAL to 128 slots to accommodate new members.
    Realism. 5 users can talk with 25 Mbit/s upstream and 128 listeners.
    Anyway, I have an instance with over 250 simultaneous users and they rarely get beyond 1 MByte/s. So it's really unrealistic to have half of the users use 3 times the bandwidth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandito View Post
    I don't see why Teamspeak would allow for NPL and AAL licences if they didn't support people self hosting.
    They support self hosting, but serious self hosting is ALWAYS meant to be in a datacenter. It makes no sense to run a server from home. If I'd run my server on my computer, that would be more expensive than running it in the datacenter.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    February 2010
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    34
    Cheapest hosting I've found is 12 bucks a month, that's more than it costs to run my server which consumes barely 30 watts of power.

    We don't make money off our server, it's for our gaming group, we have guys who take over hosting if need be. We're not running a business where we need 100% uptime, 95% is more than good enough. Still wondering why the request was rejected. Is it not possible to implement? Kind of makes this forum useless if every suggestion is rejected immediately.

    Sorry I'm not a "SERIOUS" self host. I didn't know Teamspeak only allowed SERIOUS self hosting. Would love to know where this mythical dedicated host that costs 12 bucks a year is located.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    June 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Brandito View Post
    Cheapest hosting I've found is 12 bucks a month, that's more than it costs to run my server which consumes barely 30 watts of power.
    That's very expensive. Without a domain, prices start at 1 euro in Germany.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 29th, 2012, 01:47 AM
  2. Channel permission window and channel group display all clients with many sub channel
    By -{HGH}-GEN.Skylab in forum Suggestions and Feedback
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 30th, 2010, 10:15 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 30th, 2010, 10:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •