@klaatu @renor Yes, we tried the Jitsi Meet instance at meet.jit.si last week and found it to have way too much lag.

That's why this week we're trying a #JitsiMeet instance hosted locally in our country by a community member. It *still *has too much lag to be useful.

Yet, all the centralised videoconf services have no problem keeping up on exactly the same network and computers in this building.

So, what's Jitsi Meet doing differently that makes it so laggy, and can it be markedly improved?

@bignose @klaatu @renor it being p2p makes it unusable, the bandwidth requirements are just too much...

@Matter @bignose @klaatu Jitsi Meet is not p2p, I think you are talking about Jami.

@renor @bignose @klaatu the video streams are sent from each participant to every other though, if I understood that correctly. So I was saying p2p as opposed to going through a server

@Matter @bignose @klaatu No, it doesn't work like that. It just don't mixes the video channels into a composite video stream, instead it relays the recieved video channels to all call participants. Doing so allows to have unexpensive videocalls which can run on simpler hardware and have low latencies. But it does need a server and a good bandwidth on it.

@renor @bignose @klaatu Oh, so it only sends one video stream from a user's device? Huh. How come people are saying it drops quality and becomes unusable after more than 4 people?

@Matter @bignose @klaatu I don't know. Is this happening for all users or only some users?

@renor @bignose @klaatu I don't know, only anecdotal. Maybe they were using overcharged instances then (I was convinced that wouldn't matter since the server didn't handle the video streams in my mind)

@Matter @bignose @klaatu Maybe this. Also if a user has a bad internet connection quality will not be any good (as expected). A solution could be trying to use an instance which has the server closer to your location. As far as I have tested, quality has been really good for all users (I tested it with 4 users, no more).

@renor @bignose @klaatu My use case would be more than 50 (with only one or two people using video at a time really) 😆

@Matter @bignose @klaatu Try it and tell us! It's supposed to work up to 200 participants but I think this is a huge number and it's aiming too high.

@renor @Matter @bignose @klaatu In my tests it started crapping out at about 15 participants, about half of which had video enabled. That was after changing server side config to downgrade max quality video upload from 720p to 480p (this is more effective than all participants setting their video quality to SD since that only affects download quality, not upload. VPN bandwidth seemed to be the bottleneck; the VM hosting the bridge was running at <50% CPU and ram.

@renor @Matter @bignose @klaatu
Another thing is that simulcast is disabled for firefox due to technical issues, so for best results make sure everyone is on chrome/chromium.

@kekcoin @renor @bignose @klaatu yeah I just figured that out today, that's obviously not an option though (ridiculous to expect it, and I can't promote anything with those requirements)

@Matter @renor @bignose @klaatu What can't you promote? It's a bug in firefox as I understand it.

@kekcoin @renor @bignose @klaatu I understand that, it doesn't matter though, I can't tell people to use Chromium

@Matter @renor @bignose @klaatu In my experience, as someone who uses firefox as daily browser - things tend to just not work under it, especially the more fancy/"modern" web functionality.

@Matter @kekcoin @bignose @klaatu Maybe Ungoogled Chromium on Desktop and Bromite on Android.

@renor @kekcoin @bignose @klaatu Still chromium, and uniculture of browsers is what I'm concerned about here

@Matter @renor @bignose @klaatu You might want to experiment, though. I think the problem is with firefox being the *sending* application, so as long as the one or two people use chromium, it might be fine.

@Matter @renor @bignose @klaatu Another option for your usecase might be something like peertube when the implementation of streaming is done (sounds like you are trying to organize web classes or something such).

You can follow the progress here github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube

@Matter @renor @bignose @klaatu And yes I share your concerns wrt. uniculture of browsers, but if the other option is using a closed source, centralized video conferencing/streaming platform, I am not so sure I know which I'd rather go for.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!