5 ms·

It's a fantastic open source solution. Can be self hosted. It is to note that traffic does go through the server, hence need decent bandwidth. the server afaik

by hirako2000 7y ago

It's a fantastic open source solution. Can be self hosted. It is to note that traffic does go through the server, hence need decent bandwidth. the server afaik does have the keys to decrypt traffic

supermatt 7y ago
The server (jitsi videobridge) DOES have the keys to decrypt the traffic - i.e. its not e2e encrypted. This is par for the course with webrtc SFUs (there are some "workarounds" to support e2e encryption over webrtc I mentioned in another thread).
moron4hire 7y ago
I setup my own server yesterday and shutdown the server in the middle of a conversation. The conversation kept going. Traffic only goes through the server for users behind NAT, triggering the TURN path.
- supermatt 7y ago
  That is only for 2 participants. For 3 or more (video participants), it uses the videobridge SFU. Source: https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/blob/master/doc/manual-install.md#running-behind-nat https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/blob/master/doc/manual-i...
  - moron4hire 7y ago
    I had 4 people, so either the docs are wrong or they have forgone the video bridge on my server and are using their own.
    - supermatt 7y ago
      Very possible the docs are wrong - im not a jitsi dev, so I wouldnt be able to confirm or deny without poking around. BUt they do specifically state that (as linked). That said, it is worth pointing out that this thread is specifically about videobridge (i.e. scaling beyond a full mesh).
    - saghul 7y ago
      If you had 4 people the video was going trhough the JVB for sure. Since a Jitsi Meet installation uses multiple components, maybe you didn't shut them all? Video shenanigans can be a dark art, but not that magical ;-)
      - moron4hire 7y ago
        All installed on one server, physically shut the entire server down.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
SparkyMcUnicorn 7y ago
The Jistsi team says the server needs roughly 5.5Mbps per Chrome user. Firefox uses a lot more bandwidth, system resources, and degrades the room capacity. Just something to keep in mind, and after some testing I saw the same results. My AWS bill was projected to be over $1k/month, so I put it on Linode where it'll cost between $100-200/month. Just about any decent VPS provider would be good options compared to AWS due to bandwidth.
- toohotatopic 7y ago
  Is there cheaper bandwidth available than Hetzner's 1.19euro +vat per TB? (Linode seems to be at 10$ / TB).
  - morphle 7y ago
    Leaseweb can be o lot cheaper, it depends. I'm starting an ISP again, we will charge around $0,25 per TB
  - capableweb 7y ago
    Or Hetzners dedicated hosts that have zero cost for bandwidth and unlimited traffic as well, haven't been able to find anything cheaper than that.
  - iknowstuff 7y ago
    OVH doesn't limit it afaik.
- littlestymaar 7y ago
  > The Jistsi team says the server needs roughly 5.5Mbps per Chrome user. That sounds like a lot! I wonder why an almost still image can use that much bandwidth, I guess it has to do with the low-latency requirement but I would love more details on that.
  - saghul 7y ago
    We use a technique called simulcast. It consists on making every participant "work a bit harder" for the good of the bunch. That is, every participant sends 3 separate video resolutions to the server: 720p, 480p and 180p (this may change due to bandwidth constraints). Then the server will only forward the approopriate layer to each other participant. So, if you are only seeing me in a thumbnail it will only forward the 180p layer. If I become the active speaker (or you choose to pin me to the large view) the server will immediately switch to forwarding the 720p layer. In addtion, we use SVC with temporal layers, so thumbnails may be given at just 15fps or even less. We do have a trick up our sleeve (but IIRC it haad to be disabled for the time being) which involves disabling the ssimulcast layers that nobody is requesting. That is, if nobody iss seeing me in the large view, why send the 720p layer at all? Hope that helps!

It's a fantastic open source solution. Can be self hosted. It is to note that traffic does go through the server, hence need decent bandwidth. the server afaik does have the keys to decrypt traffic

supermatt 7y ago

The server (jitsi videobridge) DOES have the keys to decrypt the traffic - i.e. its not e2e encrypted. This is par for the course with webrtc SFUs (there are some "workarounds" to support e2e encryption over webrtc I mentioned in another thread).

moron4hire 7y ago

I setup my own server yesterday and shutdown the server in the middle of a conversation. The conversation kept going. Traffic only goes through the server for users behind NAT, triggering the TURN path.

supermatt 7y ago
That is only for 2 participants. For 3 or more (video participants), it uses the videobridge SFU. Source: https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/blob/master/doc/manual-install.md#running-behind-nat https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/blob/master/doc/manual-i...
- moron4hire 7y ago
  I had 4 people, so either the docs are wrong or they have forgone the video bridge on my server and are using their own.
  - supermatt 7y ago
    Very possible the docs are wrong - im not a jitsi dev, so I wouldnt be able to confirm or deny without poking around. BUt they do specifically state that (as linked). That said, it is worth pointing out that this thread is specifically about videobridge (i.e. scaling beyond a full mesh).
  - saghul 7y ago
    If you had 4 people the video was going trhough the JVB for sure. Since a Jitsi Meet installation uses multiple components, maybe you didn't shut them all? Video shenanigans can be a dark art, but not that magical ;-)
    - moron4hire 7y ago
      All installed on one server, physically shut the entire server down.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

SparkyMcUnicorn 7y ago

The Jistsi team says the server needs roughly 5.5Mbps per Chrome user. Firefox uses a lot more bandwidth, system resources, and degrades the room capacity. Just something to keep in mind, and after some testing I saw the same results. My AWS bill was projected to be over $1k/month, so I put it on Linode where it'll cost between $100-200/month. Just about any decent VPS provider would be good options compared to AWS due to bandwidth.

toohotatopic 7y ago
Is there cheaper bandwidth available than Hetzner's 1.19euro +vat per TB? (Linode seems to be at 10$ / TB).
- morphle 7y ago
  Leaseweb can be o lot cheaper, it depends. I'm starting an ISP again, we will charge around $0,25 per TB
- capableweb 7y ago
  Or Hetzners dedicated hosts that have zero cost for bandwidth and unlimited traffic as well, haven't been able to find anything cheaper than that.
- iknowstuff 7y ago
  OVH doesn't limit it afaik.
littlestymaar 7y ago
> The Jistsi team says the server needs roughly 5.5Mbps per Chrome user. That sounds like a lot! I wonder why an almost still image can use that much bandwidth, I guess it has to do with the low-latency requirement but I would love more details on that.
- saghul 7y ago
  We use a technique called simulcast. It consists on making every participant "work a bit harder" for the good of the bunch. That is, every participant sends 3 separate video resolutions to the server: 720p, 480p and 180p (this may change due to bandwidth constraints). Then the server will only forward the approopriate layer to each other participant. So, if you are only seeing me in a thumbnail it will only forward the 180p layer. If I become the active speaker (or you choose to pin me to the large view) the server will immediately switch to forwarding the 720p layer. In addtion, we use SVC with temporal layers, so thumbnails may be given at just 15fps or even less. We do have a trick up our sleeve (but IIRC it haad to be disabled for the time being) which involves disabling the ssimulcast layers that nobody is requesting. That is, if nobody iss seeing me in the large view, why send the 720p layer at all? Hope that helps!