5 ms·
Nice docs. I had no idea you could do this locally. Out of the loop on video streaming, but looks like a webserver serving files(video segments - chopped up bas
by op03 6y ago
Nice docs. I had no idea you could do this locally. Out of the loop on video streaming, but looks like a webserver serving files(video segments - chopped up based on needs). Just curious roughly how many simultaneous clients can a generic desktop serving lets say one low quality stream (360p?) handle?
- bronco21016 6y agoI think your last question highlights that you really wouldn’t run this locally. Probably on a VPS or something with a ton of bandwidth. I’m sure someone else will have better usage benchmarks but bandwidth is likely to be the biggest constraint. Number of streamers is roughly going to be available bandwidth divided by bitrate of stream.
- gabekangas 6y agoOne option is offloading the bandwidth requirements to a S3 provider. You could run your server from home and keep your local outbound requirements low, you'd just be handing off the video to somebody who can handle it. Depending on your scale many S3 providers can be pretty cheap. I know of one person who does this specific setup and it's been working great for him!
- bronco21016 6y agoI noticed that as an option once I started looking closer. That's pretty nice! Just gotta be careful to estimate and monitor costs but depending on the use case it could make a very compelling option.
- mikewarot 6y agoYour best bet is to run this in a VM somewhere in the cloud. Each stream is going to consume bandwidth, and you'll quickly run out if you do this at home. About 10 years ago, I did a live stream to about 200 people, streamed up via a cellphone link (it was new stuff back then), then to a Windows Server instance on Amazon ECS, and out to all the users. It seem you should be able to handle similar numbers these days.