4 ms·
1. Not as much benefit for 1-on-1 except that you can guarantee connectivity without a STUN server, can get a bit more predictable network paths from client to
by kodablah 6y ago
1. Not as much benefit for 1-on-1 except that you can guarantee connectivity without a STUN server, can get a bit more predictable network paths from client to server than client to client, and can abstract choosing the best simulcasted stream quality. It won't double the connection count, but it can make you upload unnecessary streams in the case of simulcast, because the client won't be the one determining which stream quality is best, it'll just send multiple.
2. Yup, SFU acts like another client. Some libs do one connection for up and one for down or other ways to handle stream multiplexing, but overall it's the same WebRTC peer connections.
- jbaudanza 6y agoThank you! This is very helpful! We are doing mostly 1-on-1 calls, so I'm considering if peered connections would be better. They're certainly cheaper. I hadn't considering simulcasting multiple quality streams. That's something to think about. By "doubling connection count" I mean CLIENT <-> SFU <-> CLIENT is twice as many as CLIENT <-> CLIENT.
- j1elo 6y agoSome do peer to peer for 1:1, then upgrade to actually using the SFU for more participants. But that's a challenge on its own, so when more than 1:1 is expected, you might just prefer to use SFU from the start, and save the hassle for when to switch between those two models
- jbaudanza 6y agoThank you! That’s good advice