Multiple Concurrent Connections To Server: More Bandwidth?

[(PeteCresswell)]

I've got an IP camera server (Blue Iris) that presents MJPG
streams that many people can connect to.

Is more of the bandwidth between the server and it's ISP taken up
when 10 people are connected than when only one person is
connected?

i.e. Does the same stream of packets get routed to 10 people
instead of 1, or are there 10 streams of packets?

Or is this a question that cannot be answered generically?

--
Pete Cresswell

[Thor Kottelin]

"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:9tvru79f1i7r2h4in...@4ax.com...

> I've got an IP camera server (Blue Iris) that presents MJPG
> streams that many people can connect to.
>
> Is more of the bandwidth between the server and it's ISP taken up
> when 10 people are connected than when only one person is
> connected?
>
> i.e. Does the same stream of packets get routed to 10 people
> instead of 1, or are there 10 streams of packets?

You asked the same question last October, and my reply was:

'In this case, the camera would need to send one stream to each client.
(This is called unicast, and my guess is that multicast would not be
practical for your application.)'

--
Thor Kottelin
http://www.anta.net/

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Thor Kottelin:

>You asked the same question last October, and my reply was:
>
>'In this case, the camera would need to send one stream to each client.
>(This is called unicast, and my guess is that multicast would not be
>practical for your application.)'

Mea culpa.

However we have since gone beyond "the camera".

Connections are now being made to a server which, in turn
connects to the cameras.

But now I know the terms of art: "Unicast" vs "Multicast" and I
can bug the publishers of the server software: the question being
"Does your product support multicasting?".


Thanks.
--
Pete Cresswell