EPTtheres a lot of big events this saturday
HDH Invitational #1 - Page 176
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
s2pid_loser
United States699 Posts
theres a lot of big events this saturday | ||
|
theresistor
6 Posts
On May 05 2010 21:28 TotalBiscuit wrote: If we were to look at the numbers based on my previous calculations then multiply those by 3, that's 15Gbps (dear lord). The provider I use goes up to 10Gbps max per box (and those boxes cost around £300 a month minimum, plus setup fees, plus they throttle the hell out of your connection if you exceed 40TB traffic a month). 2 of those boxes would suffice for 500kbps streaming to 30,000 people. Give em 1mbps which would provide nice quality in 720p and you're looking at 15,000 people. Then look at bandwidth used. We said what, 2.25TB per hour for 10,000 at 500kbps? that's 7.75TB for 30,000 at 500kbps, 7.75TB for 15,000 at 1mbps (again, approximately numbers, not accounting for overhead). 40/7.75, yeah, that's not a lot of hours before your provider tells you to sling your hook. There are no doubt other providers more equipped to deal with sporadic bursts of extreme traffic with priceplans more suitable, but still, it's a big investment whatever way you look at it. While your calculations are probably correct because of the fact that they're doing all of this through Flash clients, the intelligent way to do this kind of mass streaming would be to use IP multicast. With multicast, the outbound bandwidth from the server is equivalent to the bandwidth to feed a single client. The IP backbone conspires to duplicate that stream as necessary to get it to all clients that join the multicast group. Unfortunately, I would be shocked if any of the Flash streaming services were using something that sensible. | ||
|
urican
Israel1 Post
gg and gl you guys | ||
|
nodule
Canada931 Posts
On May 06 2010 12:29 mrkent wrote: Why not add the new Incineration Zone to the mapset? It's new, it looks awesome, and it can provide viewers with pro insight on how to play this map. I recommend taking out metalopolis, since its a bad map with no real interesting dynamic, too much stuff clogging the map, and generally a cheap-looking map. Also, increasing the prize pool is hella lame. You had a set prize pool in the beginning and now you are increasing it. It's basically like changing the rules in the middle of a tournament. Had the players known that, maybe they would have practiced harder? First of all, that's insane. second of all, you're a ridiculous hypocrite. Adding $1000 to the prize pool is "changing the rules in the middle of the tournament", but changing the map pool isn't?? You must be trolling | ||
|
NightOfTheDead
Lithuania1711 Posts
On May 06 2010 14:53 nodule wrote: First of all, that's insane. second of all, you're a ridiculous hypocrite. Adding $1000 to the prize pool is "changing the rules in the middle of the tournament", but changing the map pool isn't?? You must be trolling Rofl, nodule actually has a point there. And btw, why do you think that players arent practicing harder when they found out about increase in prize money? Kinda weird logic, but thanks for that post mrkent, i had some uncontrollable hysterical laugh about this absurd post and the responses to it. | ||
|
Mamsaac
Mexico1 Post
Keep it up, I'm really looking forward to nony vs nazgul (and whitera vs tasteless... and all of the matches >_>). | ||
|
Aether
Canada123 Posts
On May 06 2010 06:02 TotalBiscuit wrote: His point I'd imagine, is that unless GLHF are paying for watershed functionality (ie. premium) on Ustream, they are using exactly the same streaming facilities as HD/Husky, the free ones. The stability of one streaming attempt does not prove that it's stable 100% of the time and indeed unless they are paying for premium slots, there's no reason to believe that it would be any more stable on Ustream's end. Now in terms of the technical aspects, sure, GLHF know what they're doing, but what use is that if Ustream decides to flip out? It doesn't matter if it's PROOF. It's very strong evidence. Give me a break. Your argument is ludicrous and pointless, based totally around minor technicalities. One stream worked perfectly, the other two didn't. Really, really, really simple. Use the one that works until it proves itself to be unreliable or until you are able to stabilize the other streams. Please just stop responding now. Your responses aren't productive in any way whatsoever, you're arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm trying to offer solutions to a problem. | ||
|
gbglass
Sweden29 Posts
On May 06 2010 14:35 theresistor wrote: While your calculations are probably correct because of the fact that they're doing all of this through Flash clients, the intelligent way to do this kind of mass streaming would be to use IP multicast. With multicast, the outbound bandwidth from the server is equivalent to the bandwidth to feed a single client. The IP backbone conspires to duplicate that stream as necessary to get it to all clients that join the multicast group. Unfortunately, I would be shocked if any of the Flash streaming services were using something that sensible. The only problem with this is that it doesn't work over the internet. The vast majority of routers dealing with large amounts of traffic doesn't support it. At best it works within company or university. | ||
|
TotalBiscuit
United Kingdom5437 Posts
On May 06 2010 16:53 Aether wrote: It doesn't matter if it's PROOF. It's very strong evidence. Give me a break. Your argument is ludicrous and pointless, based totally around minor technicalities. One stream worked perfectly, the other two didn't. Really, really, really simple. Use the one that works until it proves itself to be unreliable or until you are able to stabilize the other streams. Please just stop responding now. Your responses aren't productive in any way whatsoever, you're arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm trying to offer solutions to a problem. I'm sorry, but you don't get to shout down people on this forum, particularly when they've done nothing to deserve the disrespect you're tossing around so readily without cause or justification. Calling my responses 'arguing for the sake of arguing' is rather hypocritical considering your overly aggressive approach to this discussion. I'd ask you to calm down a little and realise we all want the same thing here. You are suggesting that a single, anecdotal event, is 'strong evidence' that somehow, GLHF's stream can accomodate the 10,000+ people that will tune in for the next HDH, reliably and without issue. However, there is no logical or factual basis for your assertion. GLHF use exactly the same streaming service, do not pay for premium with Ustream and the problems on HDH's end were not on the end of the streamer, but on that of the streaming service, so GLHF's expertise in streaming would not be of much help if Ustream decided, as it so frequently does when 10k+ people tune into it, to fall over. Can you explain to me how GLHF's free Ustream account would somehow be more stable than HDH's free Ustream account? Is there something we don't know about? Has Ustream provided GLHF with priority bandwidth that they haven't mentioned? If that's not the case (perhaps it is, but if they have, then why didn't you mention it?) then it is logical to suggest that GLHF's channel would be no more stable than HDH's and you certainly don't have a large enough sample size to claim otherwise. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm suggesting that your magic bullet is not a solution and your 'evidence' for it is sorely lacking. There's no need to get so defensive about it, nor take it as a personal slight. In the long term, alternative solutions need to be found, streaming via GLHF is not a solution. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On May 06 2010 14:35 theresistor wrote: While your calculations are probably correct because of the fact that they're doing all of this through Flash clients, the intelligent way to do this kind of mass streaming would be to use IP multicast. With multicast, the outbound bandwidth from the server is equivalent to the bandwidth to feed a single client. The IP backbone conspires to duplicate that stream as necessary to get it to all clients that join the multicast group. Unfortunately, I would be shocked if any of the Flash streaming services were using something that sensible. It is VERY difficult to do multicast over the whole Internet, you know ? You'd have either to enable multicast on all routers on the Internet, which is near impossible, or somehow create tunnels and that would not *truly* be multicast, more like a hybrid. One people adding a multicast address to his computer would mean for many many routers on the internet to add him in his routing table or somehow know in real time they have to send that packet right HERE. Then again, I don't have a networking PhD, so it's possible they developped some ways to do that. But it's surely not as simple as you imply  | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
So not only will GLHF not be a permanent solution, they will probably be casting the Razer cup anyway. :p | ||
|
safari
Switzerland3 Posts
On May 06 2010 18:36 Rabiator wrote: The casting time for Saturday is a bit "unlucky", since the TLI #2 will probably still be running at that time and mayb close to its finals. So it might be a good idea to change the time / date for the saturday show (maybe switch to sunday instead?), so the viewers dont have to choose between two awesome shows. /sign that'd be great btw I highly doubt the beta will end soon as I've received two new friend invites today  keep up the good work guys, you are awesome! | ||
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
Would it be technically feasible to stream through Ustream AND Livestream? Especially for the "dynamic duo" it might be possible to have HD stream to one and Husky to the other provider and use the same audio. That way the load would be spread and if one is working not so great the other serves as a backup. On May 06 2010 19:42 Technique wrote: Or just make youtube vids and up them... Thats happening anyways, but the sucky 10 minute limit of Youtube kinda cuts into the suspense too often. | ||
|
TotalBiscuit
United Kingdom5437 Posts
On May 06 2010 22:08 Rabiator wrote: Just another question for TotalBiscuit and Husky / HD: Would it be technically feasible to stream through Ustream AND Livestream? Especially for the "dynamic duo" it might be possible to have HD stream to one and Husky to the other provider and use the same audio. That way the load would be spread and if one is working not so great the other serves as a backup. With 2 commentators both doing camera work? Yeah sure, totally feasible. On the same machine? Not so much. 3 potential pitfalls include :- Extra latency caused by both spectators jamming up a large chunk of their upstream with video. Extra latency and possible audio artifacts via Skype for VOIP commentary, again due to both commentators streaming bandwidth intensive video. Camera disparity. Considering the skill and experience of both commentators, it's not that likely to happen, but it is possible that with 2 separate cameras, one per stream, one stream could end up showing the wrong thing. There is a camera-lock function available, where one spectator could lock his camera to that of the other but it does not update enough times per second to be smooth or accurate. It jerks all over the place and looks like crap. Overcome those problems and it's completely feasible though. On May 06 2010 19:42 Technique wrote: Or just make youtube vids and up them... Thats happening anyways, but the sucky 10 minute limit of Youtube kinda cuts into the suspense too often. I cannot fathom why they won't just give HD/Husky an old director's account. I applied for mine in writing back in 2006 and as such I don't have a time limit on any of my videos. They discountinued issuing them with no explanation at some point and you can't get them anymore :/ | ||
|
SilverPhoenix
Canada3 Posts
On May 06 2010 22:08 Rabiator wrote: Just another question for TotalBiscuit and Husky / HD: Would it be technically feasible to stream through Ustream AND Livestream? Especially for the "dynamic duo" it might be possible to have HD stream to one and Husky to the other provider and use the same audio. That way the load would be spread and if one is working not so great the other serves as a backup. I believe the way they've done it up to now is that HD broadcasts live while Husky records the replay to upload to youtube. This is pure speculation, but I believe there might be complications if they try to record and broadcast live on the same machine. Personally, I think releasing straight to youtube would be best. You can watch the match whenever you feel like it in 1080p, pause to take a break and replay if you missed something. Yes releasing to youtube takes a couple days longer but if they didn't tell you when they're casting the games you wouldn't know any better and be just as excited for a youtube release as you are for this livestream date. | ||
|
TotalBiscuit
United Kingdom5437 Posts
On May 06 2010 22:45 SilverPhoenix wrote: I believe the way they've done it up to now is that HD broadcasts live while Husky records the replay to upload to youtube. This is pure speculation, but I believe there might be complications if they try to record and broadcast live on the same machine Oh yeah there's that as well. Yes, there would be complications doing both, though I'm pretty sure they both have beastly machines so who knows? Can't use live commentary on FRAPsed replays because they desync all the time, so if you want to use live commentary in a Youtube VoD, you must also FRAPs live. | ||
|
heaven-
United States361 Posts
forgoet about the live stuff, it aint gonna work with the shit streams nowdays. | ||
|
StillRooney
Sweden106 Posts
Edit: Husky/HD, can you guys please let us know which sets are being streamed on which day? | ||
| ||
