4 ms·
Why not have the user's machine do the encoding into whatever format is cheapest/easiest for you to support? Could even divide user payloads into chunks and p2p
by ijustlovemath 2y ago
Why not have the user's machine do the encoding into whatever format is cheapest/easiest for you to support? Could even divide user payloads into chunks and p2p it, bittorrent style. No compute needed, beyond a tracking server that can be very cheap to run
- sweca 2y agoTranscoding client-side still has considerations: - What if the user's hardware is not performant? - Transcoding is intensive, so their machine will become slow - Even wasm based ffmpeg will not be as efficient and has its own issues - Takes a very long time
- ijustlovemath 2y ago1. Then setup a worker thread with a very high nice value, like 19. Limit your throughput with tick-based compute (sleep if you're using too much compute) 2. Not if you do as proposed 3. Efficiency is not your problem, as you've stated with the previous 2 requirements. Your algorithm doesn't have to be maximally efficient if it takes a while to compute (eg you're using sleep in it) 4. Doesn't matter, most users of this service will only be taking a few photos or videos a day. Offer a paid service upgrade for heavy users who cant handle the upload times.