Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

leandromoreira.com.br

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 99 posts

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#41

Post by jordanbaucke »

r1ch wrote: post #38
jordanbaucke wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@zbobet2012 makes sense, certainly, you can shrink the chunk-size down to 2 seconds, I wonder if it's not practical to do though wouldn't the practicality of setting up a setup > teardown of a new HTTP connection, fetching the next chunk, etc. cause inconsistency in completing this procedure by the time a 2 second chunk has played out. I believe people have used WebSockets to push these segments? Since once you have…

HTTP keepalives prevent the excessive connection requests. The main issue with HLS distribution is TCP sucks over high latency links, so you have to have edges near your users.

Gotcha! I've also heard of people using WebRTC to reduce latency by setting up a direct-to-user link between the ingest server and the end-user? Any idea how this helps?

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#42

Post by r1ch »

antisthenes wrote: post #10

I'd be much more interested to see how much data was transferred during streaming The International 6.

According to my data, the TI6 English stream had 16M viewer hours. Unfortunately I don't know the breakdown of what bitrate everyone was watching at, but assuming a mix of 50% Source quality and 50% High quality, that would equate to about 25,145 TB if my math is correct.

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#43

Post by r1ch »

jordanbaucke wrote: post #41
r1ch wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HTTP keepalives prevent the excessive connection requests. The main issue with HLS distribution is TCP sucks over high latency links, so you have to have edges near your users.

Gotcha! I've also heard of people using WebRTC to reduce latency by setting up a direct-to-user link between the ingest server and the end-user? Any idea how this helps?

Beam (recently acquired by Microsoft) does very similar to this. Rather than wait for the whole X second segment to be built and distributed, they apparently stream MPEG atoms through websockets which are them reassembled in JS and presented via media source extensions. At this point you may as well have re-invented RTMP, minus the Flash dependency :).

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#44

Post by tmptmp »

cylinder wrote: post #13
wnevets wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Unfortunately, it is easier for me to find 20 year old simpsons clips on youtube than it is for me to find a video of Bolt's 100m heat from last week. So glad I wasn't the only one. For whatever reason the nbc link to the video was never on the front of google.

This was maddening as well. I had to go through nbcsports app and dig deep to find "Michael Phelps wins gold after thrilling final!" Instead of "200m X stroke final"

Such apps are menace. It seems that these apps cannot even do anything better than simple string search. They should learn a thing: Let Google do the search for them not their app.

A joke for the people who know little bit of programming: Hope they are not using strcmp to find the video file with title "Michael Phelps wins gold after thrilling final!" :(

edit: a typo

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#45

Post by zbobet2012 »

jordanbaucke wrote: post #32
zbobet2012 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TL;DR: The delay is normally a segment length. Somewhere between 2-16s depending on there configs. Because the system is realtime (live) it _must_ not fall behind live. These systems therefore are always only a single segment behind live. (A segment is an independently decodable chunk of video, usually between 2 and 16s). Source: I designed the backends, including segmenting, for NBC.

@zbobet2012 makes sense, certainly, you can shrink the chunk-size down to 2 seconds, I wonder if it's not practical to do though wouldn't the practicality of setting up a setup > teardown of a new HTTP connection, fetching the next chunk, etc. cause inconsistency in completing this procedure by the time a 2 second chunk has played out. I believe people have used WebSockets to push these segments? Since once you have…

We (Comcast/NBC) run 2s segments for our video streaming service which is... substantially larger than this. High latency mobile networks on clients which don't do keep alive can be _somewhat_ problematic. The best fix for that is just to have a very fast/close CDN edge node.

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#46

Post by zbobet2012 »

r1ch wrote: post #43
jordanbaucke wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gotcha! I've also heard of people using WebRTC to reduce latency by setting up a direct-to-user link between the ingest server and the end-user? Any idea how this helps?

Beam (recently acquired by Microsoft) does very similar to this. Rather than wait for the whole X second segment to be built and distributed, they apparently stream MPEG atoms through websockets which are them reassembled in JS and presented via media source extensions. At this point you may as well have re-invented RTMP, minus the Flash dependency :).

Yep^^

In addition there is a major encoding downside to this. If your encoder can grab a whole 2-10s chunk of video it can produce a better quality stream. This is actually _super_ important for producing good video quality (especially on things like sports streams).

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#47

Post by zbobet2012 »

superuser2 wrote: post #34
zbobet2012 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think digital cable television works today? It happens, just on closed private networks.

Is digital cable television using IP? I thought it would be something proprietary.

IP to the edge (of a CMTS) and then it's flipped to QAM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrature_amplitude_modulatio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_modem_termination_system

Also systems like AT&T uverse (fiber to the home) use IP multicast.

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#48

Post by ryanlol »

Wow, that's not very much at all.

In comparison, I've been using a bit over 600TB with a budget of less than $500/month. With double the budget I could easily transfer olympic amounts of data!

Really puts to perspective how incredibly accessible bandwidth pricing is these days.

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#49

Post by _rpd »

liquidise wrote: post #2

> Globo.com only had rights for streaming the content to Brazil... with peak of 433K simultaneous users This is a neat writeup but the bigger point here is highlighted by the opening statements. While i get the massive revenue channel the olympics provides, i can't help but feel that the media stranglehold over the events has gone too far. The olympics represent one of the only instances of global unity through compe…

On the other hand, it did motivate me to find a way to stream NBC Sports. Something I wouldn't have done otherwise.

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#50

Post by rakoo »

liquidise wrote: post #2

> Globo.com only had rights for streaming the content to Brazil... with peak of 433K simultaneous users This is a neat writeup but the bigger point here is highlighted by the opening statements. While i get the massive revenue channel the olympics provides, i can't help but feel that the media stranglehold over the events has gone too far. The olympics represent one of the only instances of global unity through compe…

> As a lover of capitalism this all leaves me conflicted.

I don't want to go on a tangent but this is the exact contrary of Capitalism, it's a monopoly: as a consumer I can't make a choice, there is no market.

Post reply on HN