We started to use it at our startup. If anyone needs to set it up, we can do so in the cloud for them.
Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)
41–50 of 115 posts
Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)
#42What about the cost in terms of per person per hour?
It’s free and opensource.
Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)
#43Too bad, like most other solutions, Jitsi, by default, shares screen at 5 FPS.
Is that possible to change, perhaps if self-hosting? Video quality of screen sharing and frame rate are absolutely atrocious, to the point that you have to wait ten seconds until text becomes readable.
Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)
#44I like Jitsi because it doesn't require any signups and it's simple to create a channel/room. But the quality of video and audio seems a bit lacking. Does anyone have suggestions on how to improve Jitsi Meet's video and audio quality when working with the official smartphone apps and platform (not self-hosted)? Sometimes (on a broadband connection), for some participants, the video from a broadcaster freezes once in a while, and worse, the audio is many a times not clear even when the video seems fine. This is with just three or four people in the call with one person turning on the video and audio (like a presenter), and the rest of them with no video and with their mics muted.
Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)
#45I'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?
Yes. Installed it yesterday, ran a 12 person meeting with no instructions to the users other than "go to this URL". No issues.
I would even say it's more friendly than Zoom. I only tried the hosted version for both, but the experience with Jitsi was orders of magnitude simpler and faster than Zoom.
For creating a room, you need an account on Zoom and it's generally complicated to get to from the homepage. With Jitsi, right on meet.jit.si, you simply pick your url name and you're in.
For joining, Zoom kept trying to push me to download the app, and had to press two tiny buttons to get it to open in the browser. But by default you have no audio or video, so I had to spend 10m teaching my parents how to enable theirs. With Jitsi, it opens right in the browser, and video/audio work with no issue once they accept browser permissions.
At every step, zoom tried getting me to sign up or download their app, whereas Jitsi works fully in the browser with no account. Creating the room is a single click and I get to pick the url too.
Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)
#46Something that isn't mentioned in the docs is room (and server) capacity, or at least rough estimates. 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…
Where does the difference between Chrome and Firefox come from? Is Firefox using a different video format?
Perhaps related to this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/fsz3rk/implementat...
Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Load a URL on your computer. No accounts, no software. IMO, yes.
People really undervalue the awesomeness of not having to set up an account to use an online service.
No account aside (which both have), Zoom really tries to make you download the app and you have to click a bunch of tiny buttons to get it to open in the browser. Jitsi doesn't do that, it all works right in the browser, including screen sharing and all other features.
Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)
#48We did our daily standup call with it yesterday (mostly audio). 12 people, on a $3 Scaleway Debian instance (2GB RAM). Worked perfectly.
Obviously as we stopped using Zoom we have to manually upload all our personal data to Facebook now.
Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Jistsi team says the server needs roughly 5.5Mbps per Chrome user. Firefox uses a lot more bandwidth, system resources, and degrades the room capacity. 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 $100-200/month. Just about any decent VPS provider would be good options compared to AWS d…
Is there cheaper bandwidth available than Hetzner's 1.19euro +vat per TB? (Linode seems to be at 10$ / TB).
Leaseweb can be o lot cheaper, it depends.
I'm starting an ISP again, we will charge around $0,25 per TB
Re: Jitsi Meet – Improving Scale and Media Quality with Cascading SFUs (2018)
#50We did our daily standup call with it yesterday (mostly audio). 12 people, on a $3 Scaleway Debian instance (2GB RAM). Worked perfectly. Obviously as we stopped using Zoom we have to manually upload all our personal data to Facebook now.
> Obviously as we stopped using Zoom we have to manually upload all our personal data to Facebook now.
I feel like there is a joke that's going over my head or I simply don't understand. Why you have to manually signup/login/auth/whatever with Facebook because you're using Jitsi now, especially on your own host?