Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think he's saying the server would have to handle 100 streams. 10 clients * 10 streams each.


Still, isn't it one stream per client? Why 10 streams each?


If you're all connecting directly to a streaming server (instead of using something p2p), the server will have 10 connections for inbound video feeds and then 10*9 open outbound video connections to send each video to each client connection.


> 100 outgoing video feeds. Not many machines can encode 100 video feeds in realtime

The server will send 9 video streams to each connection, but it has to process only 10 video streams since it will send the same video data to all clients, if we ignore client bandwidth.


> if we ignore client bandwidth.

The parent post explicitly took the client bandwidth into account, that's why it was 100 instead of 10.

But your point about 10 vs 9 still stands. Still, 81, and if you bucket into 3 tiers, that's still 27. Which at least scales linearly instead of quadratically.


Exactly. It scales linearly, not quadratically. I forgot to mention that since clients do the "original" encoding, the server actually does less work (regarding resolution tiers).


agreed. do not agree with OP that all 100 require transcoding


I wonder if OP meant "1 outgoing and 9 incoming" streams.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: