3 ms·
Risky, WebRTC isn't quite P2P, the sending peer still has to sort of spend the resources to send to all participants. It's a full mesh but you'd want something
by zaarn 6y ago
Risky, WebRTC isn't quite P2P, the sending peer still has to sort of spend the resources to send to all participants. It's a full mesh but you'd want something more open. You'll also have to consider DDoS protections for streamers.
- viraptor 6y agoI'm not sure what you mean... why would webrtc spend any more resources than the current solution?
- zaarn 6y agoWebRTC in Videochats usually employs 1:1 P2P, meaning everyone builds a peer connection to everyone else. So for N people you have N connections carrying your traffic M, so the total bandwidth is NM. For torrent P2P you get clusters of peers sharing data, you don't have to send data to every peer, the usual outcome is logarithmic, so you connect to log(N) peers for N participants with total bandwidth being log(N)M.
- viraptor 6y agoThat's only because for video chats you need a full mesh in p2p. There's no requirement for that in webrtc itself which would be just the transport protocol in your case. You can also send only the selected chunks rather than stream the whole file.
- zaarn 6y agoBut then you basically do what webtorrent already does, why reinvent it for no reason?
- viraptor 6y agoThe whole premise of this thread is the speculation: "Google would eventually try to deprecate whatever API peertube needs". My answer to that is "basically do what webtorrent already does" (but using a different API)