Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018) • Hacker News Board

Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)

#101

Post by Certhas » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 6:44 AM UTC

ooboe wrote: post #92

Certhas wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We tried to but with most of our team on Firefox it simply doesn't work unfortunately. Zoom has been the only thing reliable for us. It's a bit ironic that somewhere, someone is switching from Firefox to Chrome because of data concerns with Zoom.

That's odd. My experience with Firefox on Windows is that I can't get audio to work with Zoom. Jitsi, on the other hand, works perfectly though there is a small yellow box that warns me that I should use a "fully supported browser"

We use the Zoom standalone mostly. So Firefox isn't involved in the Zoom side.

Jitsi works fine with small groups. But if we have >10 Firefox users in a room it doesn't for us. Maybe if you have much better internet than we have or otherwise better resources it works for you?

We were using a WebRTC based tool before Corona (DFN), and had deprecated Zoom, unfortunately the people running that didn't manage to scale it up sufficiently in the crisis, hence we had to fallback to Zoom.

Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)

#102

Post by pojntfx » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 6:53 AM UTC

Jitsi has really been kicking it at my school lately; I wrote a chat bot for out Nextcloud that creates meetings and now up to 150 people can easily join into one conversation!

Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)

#103

Post by mrpurple_ » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 7:19 AM UTC

corwin7 wrote: post #34

I tried installing this on two different Ubuntu machines using their Ubuntu repo and it did not work. Worked fine on both Android and Ios. This is about what I expect from a java application - the java ecosystem is co convoluted and fragile that the only real options are Android, Ios, and Docker. I wish someone would write something like this in Go or Rust.

Docker4thewin :)

Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)

#104

Post by littlestymaar » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 10:20 AM UTC

saghul wrote: post #73

littlestymaar wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Jistsi team says the server needs roughly 5.5Mbps per Chrome user. That sounds like a lot! I wonder why an almost still image can use that much bandwidth, I guess it has to do with the low-latency requirement but I would love more details on that.

We use a technique called simulcast. It consists on making every participant "work a bit harder" for the good of the bunch. That is, every participant sends 3 separate video resolutions to the server: 720p, 480p and 180p (this may change due to bandwidth constraints). Then the server will only forward the approopriate layer to each other participant. So, if you are only seeing me in a thumbnail it will only forward t…

Thanks for your interesting answer. It doesn't really address my question though, so I will rephrase it:

If I take a 720p video of a webcam and encode it to be delivered as progressive live streaming, the resulting stream is going to be less than one Mbps : because the image doesn't move much, I don't need many key-frame, one every 4 seconds is more than enough, and I've seen streams with no more than one every 30s (live streaming of harbours' CCTV cameras, don't ask me why). But of course it won't be realtime either, and you're gonna have a few seconds of latency. While this is OK for live streaming, it is certainly not for a video chat room.

What I'd like to know is why the latency requirement reduces that much the encoding efficiency. Do you have an idea ?

Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)

#105

Post by GuqLyr » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 12:33 PM UTC

AnonC wrote: post #98

GuqLyr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can override configuration options by appending `#config.optionname=value` to the meeting url in a fresh new browser tab

Which configurations can ensure video and audio at a good enough quality with audio being clear and video not dropping frames (even if the video is a bit blurry, that’s fine)?

You can lower the video quality in the bottom right menu. You can even limit your own camera's capture resolution, for example #config.constraints.video.height.max=360 . See https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/blob/master/config.js for all the options.

Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)

#106

Post by fulafel » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 1:06 PM UTC

ooboe wrote: post #92

Certhas wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We tried to but with most of our team on Firefox it simply doesn't work unfortunately. Zoom has been the only thing reliable for us. It's a bit ironic that somewhere, someone is switching from Firefox to Chrome because of data concerns with Zoom.

That's odd. My experience with Firefox on Windows is that I can't get audio to work with Zoom. Jitsi, on the other hand, works perfectly though there is a small yellow box that warns me that I should use a "fully supported browser"

Anyone know what the reason for the yellow box is?

Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)

#107

Post by Certhas » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 1:26 PM UTC

fulafel wrote: post #106

ooboe wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's odd. My experience with Firefox on Windows is that I can't get audio to work with Zoom. Jitsi, on the other hand, works perfectly though there is a small yellow box that warns me that I should use a "fully supported browser"

Anyone know what the reason for the yellow box is?

Because Firefox in Jitsi is seriously not working unless you have small groups and resources to spare. But they are working on it:

https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/issues/4758

https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/issues/5439

Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)

#108

Post by fulafel » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 1:52 PM UTC

Certhas wrote: post #107

fulafel wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone know what the reason for the yellow box is?

Because Firefox in Jitsi is seriously not working unless you have small groups and resources to spare. But they are working on it: https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/issues/4758 https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/issues/5439

Does it need more bandwidth or more server resources (or both?)

Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)

#109

Post by UncleMeat » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 3:50 PM UTC

gidam wrote: post #40

Jitsi-meet is very easy to install and to setup. "apt install jitsi-meet" and you have almost all done. The documentation is very good. It works great and it is super userfriendly. You have no excuses.

> You have no excuses.

Billions of users who aren't using linux distros with aptitude have an excuse. This isn't remotely close to the "just works" that you need to get wide adoption.

Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)

#110

Post by dedward » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

Half-Shot wrote: post #81

jteppinette wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The riot features page makes it seem very "built-in" ( https://about.riot.im/features#voice-video ).

riot.im hosts its own Jitsi instance which is built into the UI, so hitting the call button in a room will spawn an embedded Jitsi call in the room. Recently we added the option for people to use their own self hosted Jitsi instances, if they prefer. (1:1 calls at the moment are normal WebRTC, directly over Matrix)

I might be breaking the rules, but can you point me towards any information about how to integrate my existing self-hosted jitsi server into my self-hosted matrix install? Finding this seems elusive.