21–30 of 115 posts
It's a fantastic open source solution. Can be self hosted. It is to note that traffic does go through the server, hence need decent bandwidth. the server afaik does have the keys to decrypt traffic
I setup my own server yesterday and shutdown the server in the middle of a conversation. The conversation kept going. Traffic only goes through the server for users behind NAT, triggering the TURN path.
I'm kind of fearing trying to deploy it in my company. This has nothing to do with Jitsi Meet and everything to do with the shitshow that is WebRTC in browsers.
I can't find any desktop browsers that use the available GPU for hardware accelerated video encoding. Chromium (Google and Edge) says it's "only available on Chrome OS and Android". Firefox has a flag with no scare-provisos, but I've been unable to tell if it's had any effect.
By default, every browser on my system was setup to prefer the Intel UHD GPU. I've got an NVidia GeForce RTX 2080 in this laptop. Why not use that?
One of the reasons is that all the browsers have a software-rendering blacklist for certain combos of OS/hardware/drivers. There are rare cases where errant WebGL code can cause a full system crash on (checks notes) Android. So if you're one of the unlucky many who have these combos, but also an operating system smart enough to put graphics drivers into userland, you're taking the fast-train to turning your laptop into a blow-dryer. So they tend to take the Intel GPU over the NVidia GPU because apparently Intel's hardware+drivers isn't as buggy.
You can override it in the hidden settings, which means nobody overrides it.
All of this is to say, you could have a very powerful computer and still have very poor WebRTC performance.
It's a fantastic open source solution. Can be self hosted. It is to note that traffic does go through the server, hence need decent bandwidth. the server afaik does have the keys to decrypt traffic
Just something to keep in mind, and after some testing I saw the same results.
My AWS bill was projected to be over $1k/month, so I put it on Linode where it'll cost between $100-200/month. Just about any decent VPS provider would be good options compared to AWS due to bandwidth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I setup my own server yesterday and shutdown the server in the middle of a conversation. The conversation kept going. Traffic only goes through the server for users behind NAT, triggering the TURN path.
That is only for 2 participants. For 3 or more (video participants), it uses the videobridge SFU. Source: https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/blob/master/doc/manual-i...
I've been playing with a custom install of Jitsi Meet for the last few days. It was very easy to setup. I'm kind of fearing trying to deploy it in my company. This has nothing to do with Jitsi Meet and everything to do with the shitshow that is WebRTC in browsers. I can't find any desktop browsers that use the available GPU for hardware accelerated video encoding. Chromium (Google and Edge) says it's "only available…
hint: it's not nvidia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is only for 2 participants. For 3 or more (video participants), it uses the videobridge SFU. Source: https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/blob/master/doc/manual-i...
I had 4 people, so either the docs are wrong or they have forgone the video bridge on my server and are using their own.
That said, it is worth pointing out that this thread is specifically about videobridge (i.e. scaling beyond a full mesh).
I would love to use this instead of zoom. Any news about firefox support?
I use it for quick meetings on Firefox and so far it works with the limited set of features I need, despite the warning.
The Jitsi team gave some specific numbers on room capacity in the forums. Each room should reliably handle 20-35 Chrome users (Firefox uses roughly double the resources), and has a cap at 75. Apparently if you're only using audio, then rooms of 70+ people will work fine.
They're working on upping this number to 500 for configurations that have multiple bridges, as well as improving the UI to account for larger meetings.
I've been excited to try it with our company for a few months, but is it as "user friendly" as Zoom for non-technical users?