3 ms·
Still, isn't it one stream per client? Why 10 streams each?
by tydok 7y ago
Still, isn't it one stream per client? Why 10 streams each?
- maxmcd 7y agoIf you're all connecting directly to a streaming server (instead of using something p2p), the server will have 10 connections for inbound video feeds and then 10*9 open outbound video connections to send each video to each client connection.
- tydok 7y ago> 100 outgoing video feeds. Not many machines can encode 100 video feeds in realtime The server will send 9 video streams to each connection, but it has to process only 10 video streams since it will send the same video data to all clients, if we ignore client bandwidth.
- maxmcd 7y agoagreed. do not agree with OP that all 100 require transcoding
- swsieber 7y ago> if we ignore client bandwidth. The parent post explicitly took the client bandwidth into account, that's why it was 100 instead of 10. But your point about 10 vs 9 still stands. Still, 81, and if you bucket into 3 tiers, that's still 27. Which at least scales linearly instead of quadratically.
- tydok 7y agoExactly. It scales linearly, not quadratically. I forgot to mention that since clients do the "original" encoding, the server actually does less work (regarding resolution tiers).
- solarengineer 7y agoI wonder if OP meant "1 outgoing and 9 incoming" streams.