Can i use a socket 775 CPU in a socket 771?

[just a noob]

binning and they are stable at much lower voltages
edit: zatharus, have you seen what the new xeon's clock to? i mean, i saw a w3520 at 4ghz with 1.1 volts or so

 

[Zatharus]

I'm not sure. The new chips just came out on the general market. They have been in MacPros for a while though. I would expect a few OC articles/reviews to pop up in the next few weeks.

Ah, I forgot to mention the voltages. Thank you for pointing that out. I will edit the prior post to reflect that.

 

[douche]

Well, honestly, if you are contemplating that kind of a workload and audience, you will need a serious data pipeline and more than one server. To get started, pick a Xeon (or two in your case) of any speed. They will work. You are looking at spending several thousand anyway right?

Why would a need more than 1 server, and just how many would suffice? What about network card speed? How fast should the NIC(s) be?

 

[Zatharus]

Why would a need more than 1 server, and just how many would suffice? What about network card speed? How fast should the NIC(s) be?

This all depends on the traffic load you intend to cater to. Just like any web-server that is feeding pages to those who request it, you will need to provide your media to those who need it. The biggest difference between a simple web page server and a media server is that the typical aggregate data transfer rates are even higher per user.

The simplest way for you to setup an internet radio transmiter will be via a unicast transmission system. If you really want to go big, you would be looking at multicast transmissions. That is a whole different story. The problem with unicast transmissions is that you need to provide the same feed to each user directly. In other words, if you have a meager 32kb/s feed and you have four listenters, that means you are using up 32x4kb/s or 128kb/s of upload bandwidth. This can add up very, very quickly. On top of that, what if you start offering multiple streams? See where I am going with this?

Aside from bandwidth considerations, the need for more servers is to balance the load out between multiple units. This way, no one computer in a group gets overloaded with data requests. They all share the data load. Feeding network traffic, encoding the media stream or file retrieval will all tax a CPU. Each CPU and storage system will have its limits.

You can start with a simple Pentium 1 setup on a tiny DSL line and go as large as a full blown data center on an OC192 pipe or two. Just to help you get started, have a look over here.

 

[douche]

That link is very helpful, but i'm NOT sure if it's useful. That setup is VERY limiting. What's the difference between unicasting & multicasting? It looks like i'm stuck with Windows Media Encoder, Helix Server is only 12-months free, Live365 is expensive, and Shoutcast/Icecast only works with Winamp. Is there anything i can do about the delay? Does Windows Media Encoder support multicasting? How far past 5 users will WME allow? Where in the registry would i change it's setting? Looks like the author of that link even switched to MS Media Services, will that run on XP? Can it only support up to 90 users? I see now if i wanted to stream my radio across a city i would need about 6 Zeon servers on a SONET network, right?

 

[Zatharus]

Right, that link should give you an idea of where to start, just to experiment. It is a very limited setup. For large scale operations, you should look into some commercial products, or if you are adventurous, there are some open source Linux tools out there. It has been quite a few years since I have done anything like this on Linux, but I can see about digging up some of my old resources.

Delay is inherent in all forms of data transmission. The only way that you can reduce the amount of delay is to have an extremely fast/wide data pipe, the fastest processors you can find (for encoding and transmission), and end users with very fast internet access to your server. Buffering of streaming media is normal. The faster the connection is on both sides and the smaller the buffer, the less time is needed for buffering. For example, a broadband user may pick up a 5-second buffer of your stream in under a second, but a dial-up user may need the full 5-seconds (or more) to fill out the buffer to prevent uninterrupted playback.

Most streaming applications can support multicasts if you have the appropriate setup. Windows Media Encoder is one of those. I am not sure how far past the initial 5 user limit you can configure WME for unicast, but in a multicast situation, you are essentially limitless. WME will work on XP or even Vista.

The basic breakdown for Multicast vs Unicast is this: Unicast is pretty much individual streams per user. The server must feed out the stream to each requesting IP in a server to peer communication. Multicast is more like a radio transmitter in that you have one stream going out and multiple users essentialy tuned in to that signal. The end user points to the right IP and port and listens. Each form has its own strengths and weaknesses. For more detailed information, please head here for unicast and here for multicast.

As for the number of servers and the bandwidth you would need, that will depend highly upon the type of transmission and the form of service you wish to offer. Fiber is one viable method of data transport, yes.

Edit: Also, you may want to check out these guys. Here is another good read over at TechRepublic.