I have a simple UDP streaming protocol that takes RAW H264 video frames and sends them instantly from server side to the client side.
Using this protocol I can get near network RTT latency (no packet resending and I don't care about packet loss), so if I have 20 ms latency from server to the client I can make a video frame to be ready from encoder output to the client side (ready to be decoded) in... let's say 30 ms.
My question is:
Is WebRTC (over UDP) capable of going down to this kind of latencies?
Not taking into account encoding and decoding times, what is the
lowest latency possible I can get with WebRTC for the protocol layer?
I don't know if this kind of latencies will require my own protocol to be more deeply developed or I may go to something more generic like WebRTC for my video server development in order to instantly be supported by every web browser.
WebRTC can have the same low latency as regular SIP/RTP stacks.
WebRTC stack vendors does their best to reduce delay.
For recording and sending out there is no any delay. The stack will send the packets immediately once received from the recorder device and compressed with the selected codec. Some codec's (and some codec settings) might introduce some delay here to enable some features such as FEC.
Regarding the receiver side:
In optimal circumstances the stack should not delay the playback of the packets, so they can be display as soon as they arrive.
However in sub-optimal circumstances (with network delays or packet loss) the stack will introduce a jitter buffer. The lower is the network quality, the higher will be the jitter buffer length.
So, to achieve the lowest delay, you might have to do the followings:
choose a codec with the smallest processing time
remove FEC and disable any other settings which might cause additional delays
remove the jitter buffer (most WebRTC stacks doesn't have a setting for this so you might have to modify the code yourself, but it is an easy modification, because you just need to deactivate a part of the code)
WebRTC uses RTP as the underlying media transport which has only a small additional header at the beginning of the payload compared to plain UDP. This means it should be on par with what you achieve with plain UDP. RTP is heavily used in latency critical environments like real time audio and video (its the media transport in SIP, H.323, XMPP) and thus you can expect the latency to be sufficient for this purpose.
Related
I have been trying to use WebRTC Data Channel for a game, however, I am unable to consistently send live player data without hitting the queue size limit (8KB) after 50-70 secs of playing.
Sine the data is required to be real-time, I have no use for data that comes out of order. I have initialized the data channel with the following attributes:
negotiated: true,
id: id,
ordered: true,
maxRetransmits: 0,
maxPacketLifetime: 66
The MDN Docs said that the buffer cannot be altered in any way.
Is there anyway I can consistently send data without exceeding the buffer space? I don't mind purging the buffer space as it only contains data that has been clogged up over time.
NOTE: The data is transmitting until the buffer size exceeds the 8KB space.
EDIT: I forgot to add that this issue is only occurring when the two sides are on different networks. When both are within the same LAN, there is no buffering (since higher bandwidth, I presume). I tried to add multiple Data Channels (8 in parallel). However, this only increased the time before the failure occurred again. All 8 buffers were full. I also tried creating a new channel each time the buffer was close to being full and switched to the new DC while closing the previous one that was full, but I found out the hard way (reading Note in MDN Docs) that the buffer space is not released immediately, rather tries to transmit all data in the buffer taking away precious bandwidth.
Thanks in advance.
The maxRetransmits value is ignored if the maxPacketLifetime value is set; thus, you've configured your channel to resend packets for up to 66ms. For your application, it is probably better to use a pure unreliable channel by setting maxPacketLifetime to 0.
As Sean said, there is no way to flush the queue. What you can do is to drop packets before sending them if the channel is congested:
if(dc.bufferedAmount > 0)
return;
dc.send(data);
Finally, you should realise that buffering may happen in the network as well as at the sender: any router can buffer packets when it is congested, and many routers have very large buffers (this is called BufferBloat). The WebRTC stack should prevent you from buffering too much data in the network, but if WebRTC's behaviour is not aggressive enough for your needs, you will need to add explicit feedback from the sender to the receiver in order to avoid having too many packets in flight.
I don't believe you can flush the outbound buffer, you will probably need to watch the bufferedAmount and adjust what you are sending if it grows.
Maybe handle the retransmissions yourselves and discard old data if needed? WebRTC doesn't surface the SACKs from SCTP. So I think you will need to implement something yourself.
It's an interesting problem. Would love to hear the WebRTC W3C WorkGroup takes on it if exposing more info would make things easier for you.
We're experimenting with a Freeswitch based multiparty video conferencing solution (Zoom like). The users are connecting via WebRTC (Verto clients) and the streams are all muxed and displayed on the canvas (mod_conference in mux mode). It works OK, but we notice high media latency for mixed output and this makes it very difficult to have a real-time dialogue. This is not load related, even with only 1 caller watching himself on the canvas (the mux conference output), it takes almost 1 second to see a local move being reflected on the screen (e.g. if I raise my hand I can see it happening on the screen after almost 1 second ). This is obviously the roundtrip delay, but after discarding the intrinsic network latency (measured to be about 100 ms roundtrip) there seem to be around 800-900 ms added latency. There's no TURN relaying involved. It seems this is being introduced along the buffering/ transcoding/ muxing pipeline. Any suggestions please what to try to reduce the latency? What sort of latency should we expect, what's your experience, has anyone deployed a Freeswitch video conferencing with acceptable latency for bidirectional, real time conversations? Ultimately I'm trying to understand if Freeswitch can be used for a multiparty real time video conversation or I should give up look for something else. Thanks!
does anyone know how to stream html5 camera output to other users.
If that's possible should I use sockets, images and stream them to the users or other technology.
Is there any video tutorial where I can take a look about it.
Many thanks.
The two most common approaches now are most likely:
stream from the source to a server, and allow users connect to the server to stream to their devices, typically using some form of Adaptive Bit Rate streaming protocol (ABR - basically creates multiple bit rate versions of your content and chunks them, so the client can choose the next chunk from the best bit rate for the device and current network conditions).
Stream peer to peer, or via a conferencing hub, using WebRTC
In general, the latter is more focused towards real time, e.g. any delay should be below the threshold which would interfere with audio and video conferences, usually less than 200ms for audio for example. To achieve this it may have to sacrifice quality sometimes, especially video quality.
There are some good WebRTC samples available online (here at the time of writing): https://webrtc.github.io/samples/
I've been experimenting with isochronous USB transfers using WinUsb, and it turns out that WinUsb always sends data as fast as possible:
WinUsb_WriteIsochPipe packetizes the transfer buffer so that in each interval, the host can send the maximum bytes allowed per interval.
However for the kernel drivers you can apparently send shorter packets:
The MaximumPacketSize value indicates the maximum permitted size of the isochronous packet. The client driver can set the size of each isochronous packet to any value less than the MaximumPacketSize value.
I wondered how USB audio handles this. As far as I can see in the spec they just two alternative configurations for the interface - a zero bandwidth one, and a non-zero bandwidth one. There is a flag that says whether the endpoint requires full-size packets or not.
So my questions are:
a) What is the best way to handle sending less than full-speed data. Should I have a whole array of alternate configurations with different max packet sizes?
b) Should I expect to be able to send shorter-than-maximum packets? If so why doesn't WinUsb allow this?
Maybe you have to call WinUsb_WriteIsochPipe once for each packet you want to send. Make sure to use asynchronous I/O so you can queue up dozens or hundreds of requests ahead of time.
I'm experimenting with webRTC and it seems that there's an arbitrary limit to how many bytes can be sent in each message. This guy whose example I used chose a limit of 100 (plus some) bytes. In my tests it seems to be close to 200 bytes. However from reading on TCP and UDP those protocols support packages of up to around 65kb and even when taking the MTU for different types of networks into account it should still be a lot more space available than ~200 bytes.
The only source I've found that mentions a hard limit is this WebRTC Data Channel Protocol draft but it only says TBD.
So my questions are:
if there's any source that specifies the current message size limit in any browser?
if I can assume that the limit is always the same, and if not if there's any way my app can be made aware of the limit?
The sharefest project found a way around the rate throttling - you can modify the outgoing offer to change the bandwidth setting (per http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2327.txt)
Details here: https://github.com/Peer5/ShareFest/blob/master/public/js/peerConnectionImplChrome.js#L201
From my own experience you're still limited to ~800 bytes per message.
I've been testing sending jpegs to chrome 57 over the data channel, and messages up to 64k seem to be reliable now.
The webRTC data channel does have a reliability mechanism, it uses SCTP over DTLS (over UDP) - SCTP lets you set reliability and ordering behaviour, but by default WebRTC uses ordered+reliable - meaning you get similar semantics to that of TCP - except that the message boundaries are preserved - at least in theory.
In practice Chrome may deliver partial messages up to the javascript if it runs out of space so it is best to check that you have a complete message before processing it.