Are popular video streamers like "lighttpd" allowed on shared servers?

[imenigma]

Just the title, I read the the TOS and seen nothing against video streaming, bit there is a limit on the CPU usage, and I don't know what kind of performance lighttpd needs, can anyone help?

[striddy]

Originally Posted by imenigma

I don't know what kind of performance lighttpd needs, can anyone help?

Lighttpd is a webserver. HG runs Apache, not lighttpd.

[imenigma]

Ohhh..... Sorry, well how do I use it? Or can I?

[slapshotw]

Lighttpd has nothing to do with video streaming, per se. It, just like Apache, serves files of arbitrary types (I'm simplifying...).

[imenigma]

OK, so basically theres nothing I can do to stream my videos unless I switch to a lighttpd server? Darn, I'm gonna have to stick with progressive download which is unbelievably slow on HG servers for some reason...

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by imenigma

progressive download which is unbelievably slow on HG servers for some reason...

Possibly because inexpensive shared accounts aren't really designed for either intensive downloading or extensive video usage?

Audio streaming is restricted by the TOS--allowed, but restricted--so it may be an oversight that the relevant part doesn't read "audio and video streaming".

[imenigma]

Originally Posted by gwyneth

Possibly because inexpensive shared accounts aren't really designed for either intensive downloading or extensive video usage?

Audio streaming is restricted by the TOS--allowed, but restricted--so it may be an oversight that the relevant part doesn't read "audio and video streaming".

Wait, so I'm not supposed to be streaming video on my account? But looking into it it says "Commercial Audio Streams" aren't allowed... so I'm guessing no streaming of audio like Last.FM does or something... which I don't do.

My site offers tutorials and game videos and thats one of the main parts, high quality video streaming, I only have like 4 videos up anyways... and not many more will be added... so should I quit?

[slapshotw]

Originally Posted by imenigma

OK, so basically theres nothing I can do to stream my videos unless I switch to a lighttpd server?

That's not what I said. Video Streaming has nothing to do with Lighttpd. Being on a lighttpd server (on or off hostgator) will not suddenly let you stream video. It's just a web serving application. They are completely separate decisions/topics.

[imenigma]

Originally Posted by slapshotw

That's not what I said. Video Streaming has nothing to do with Lighttpd. Being on a lighttpd server (on or off hostgator) will not suddenly let you stream video. It's just a web serving application. They are completely separate decisions/topics.

Ok, I didn't understand what you where saying because I'm using JW Player and like everywhere are there site they talk about HTTP streaming with "xmoov" and "lighttpd" so I thought it was built for that, sorry.

[striddy]

Probably better for you, HG and your viewers if you upload your videos to sites like google video. Their servers are obviously designed / tuned for this type of thing and you can make the videos "unlisted" if you need to, so as to not appear in google search results.

[dwrunyon]

I flash mine progressive and they play good:

http://weddingdaymovies.com/samples.html

Maybe you have yores encoded at too high a bitrate fer progressive? I have never looked into streamin, really, cause it's always been so simple just to convert mine to FLV and roll em with JW Media Player.

[slapshotw]

Originally Posted by imenigma

Ok, I didn't understand what you where saying because I'm using JW Player and like everywhere are there site they talk about HTTP streaming with "xmoov" and "lighttpd" so I thought it was built for that, sorry.

Lighttpd is made to be faster than Apache at certain types of operations. If you're running a very resource-intensive, popular site (like youtube) you can see significant performance increases *with some types of functions* if things are tuned correctly. You'll still be able to run these things on Apache, and my personal opinion is that if your site is getting so popular that lighttpd would make a significant difference, it's time to go to a dedicated server.

[Pitrow]

another option you can use is something like streamhoster.com

For one of my sites that does a lot of video work I setup an account there and just embed the video and player into the account here on HG. I think there smallest account is $15/mo but you get full streaming video without any quality degradation like you get if you use some of the free video hosts like youtube, etc.

[FortErieDave]

I second what dwrunyon said. I've been using Flash video on my sites for a few years and even though they are a progressive download, they exhibit the same behaviour as something being live streamed (ie.- after initial buffering they play continually until done).

[Pitrow]

Originally Posted by FortErieDave

I second what dwrunyon said. I've been using Flash video on my sites for a few years and even though they are a progressive download, they exhibit the same behaviour as something being live streamed (ie.- after initial buffering they play continually until done).

Seems like you don't quite right understand the whole point of streaming. With a true streamed video you can jump to any point in the video without having to wait for it to load the entire thing. With progressive download you have to do just that. It starts downloading and lets you view what has been downloaded while it's downloading the rest, but you can't jump ahead.

With a true streaming server you can jump to any point in the stream and view it.

Say you have a 15 minute video and need to view something that's at 13:05. With a progressive download you will have to wait until it's downloaded from 00:01 to 13:05 before you can view it. With a streaming server you can jump directly to 13:05 and start watching from there.

[FortErieDave]

I think most people will find progressive video downloads suit their needs just fine.

[dwrunyon]

Yeah, I don't really care to have folks skippin around on what I make... if they caint watch the whole damn thang then why are they even watchin? My content is sacred to me, so really if my viewers caint watch it ALL, then I don't consider em my viewers...

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by FortErieDave

I think most people will find progressive video downloads suit their needs just fine.

Originally Posted by dwrunyon

Yeah, I don't really care to have folks skippin around on what I make... if they caint watch the whole damn thang then why are they even watchin? My content is sacred to me, so really if my viewers caint watch it ALL, then I don't consider em my viewers...

Excellent points. The purpose of the videos shown on shared hosting accounts at least should be different from YouTube....such as showing the highlights of a basketball tournament (i.e., a devoted audience); or showing the right technique for washing the dog; or demonstrating the benefits of a product; or, in Daniel's case, serving as a professional portfolio.

[dwrunyon]

Originally Posted by gwyneth

or, in Daniel's case, serving as a professional portfolio.

Actually, that's just all that's still up... right before I moved to HG I had a LOT more video up and runnin, none of the rest of it havin anythang to do with "video services" per se. I am gittin ready to run a homemade hillbilly variety show (called The Haw Haw Show) on it, and it will all be progressive as well, and I will still have the above notion of expectin folks to watch all er nuthin!

I aint meanin to "dispute" with ya on this, just pointin out some thangs that are not readilly apparent from just lookin at my sites... there was a LOT more to my setup just recent!

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by dwrunyon

that are not readilly apparent from just lookin at my sites...

Actually, I haven't seen your site, but was using it as a hypothetical to point out the kinds of video use for which shared hosting accounts are suitable, as opposed to the kinds for which they are not (i.e., such extensive streaming and downloads that lighttpd would make a difference, as Matt pointed out).

Another way to look at it, which meshes with David's and Pitrow's suggestions: with a shared account you need to keep the HG server from doing as much work as possible, pushing it to the visitor's PC or pulling from an offsite specialized video server.

[dwrunyon]

Ahhh, gite ya. In them kind of cases, I bleeve I would probly upload to Google Video and embed.

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by dwrunyon

Ahhh, gite ya. In them kind of cases, I bleeve I would probly upload to Google Video and embed.

I should have clarified that the explanation about pushing and pulling was for the OP, not someone like you and the other posters who know a lot more about video serving than I do.

[dwrunyon]

No no, you did fine, I was just clarifyin that I have pushed a LOT more video usin the method I mentioned than JUST my wed vid portfolio, to illustrate the point that it can indeed be good fer more than that. I am sure though, as you say, that there is a certain point where one would need more resources than a little ol shared.

[dwrunyon]

Oh, somethin I just noticed... the OP is called imenigma, and I'd like to point out that I too am enigma... enigmaramus!