We have developed a 1-1 video conferencing solution using RTMP , RTMFP technologies using Adobe. We are making use of Flash Media Development Server for recording the web streams. We have tested our application locally and it seems to work good.
Thus, We deployed the application to our server but the latency is very high (like 15 seconds). I mean when i talk , the other party gets my voice after 15 - 20 seconds.
Could someone explain me what is the real problem behind this ?
Do i have to purchase this https://secure1.influxis.com/webrootv10/custom_enterprise/index.aspx
Application.xml
http://www.2shared.com/document/PfMTpQsJ/Application.html
Thanks.
Related
Suppose I have 2 peers exchanging video with webRTC. Now I need both of the streams to be saved as video files in the central server. Is is possible to do it realtime? (Storing/Uploading the video from peers is not an option).
I thought of making a 3 node webRTC connection, with the 3rd node being the server. This way, I can screen record the 3rd node's stream or save it using some other way. But I am not sure about the reliability/feasibility of the implementation.
This is for a mobile application, and I would avoid any method that involves uploading/saving.
PS: I'm using Agora.io for the purpose of video-conference.
in my opinion
you can do it like the record demo:https://webrtc.github.io/samples/src/content/getusermedia/record/.
record each stream to blobs and push them to your server with websocket.
then convert the blobs to a webm file or just add in a video
Agora doesn't offer on-premise recording out of the box but they do provide thee code for you to be able to launch your own on-premise recording using your own server. Agora has the code and instructions to deploy on GitHub: https://github.com/AgoraIO/Basic-Recording
The way it works, once you have set up the Agora Recording SDK, the client would trigger the recording to start, via user interaction (button tap) or some other event (i.e. peer-joined or stream-subscribed) this will trigger the recording service to join the channel and record the streams. _The service outputs the video file once recording has stopped.
you need a WebRTC media server.
WebRTC media servers makes it possible to support more complex
scenarios WebRTC media servers are servers that act as WebRTC clients
but run on the server side. They are termination points for the media
where we’d like to take action. Popular tasks done on WebRTC media
servers include:
Group calling Recording Broadcast and live streaming Gateway to other
networks/protocols Server-side machine learning Cloud rendering
(gaming or 3D) The adventurous and strong hearted will go and develop
their own WebRTC media server. Most would pick a commercial service or
an open source one. For the latter, check out these tips for choosing
WebRTC open source media server framework.
In many cases, the thing developers are looking for is support for
group calling, something that almost always requires a media server.
In that case, you need to decide if you’d go with the classing (and
now somewhat old) MCU mixing model or with the more accepted and
modern SFU routing model. You will also need to think a lot about the
sizing of your WebRTC media server.
For recording WebRTC sessions, you can either do that on the client
side or the server side. In both cases you’ll be needing a server, but
what that server is and how it works will be very different in each
case.
If it is broadcasting you’re after, then you need to think about the
broadcast size of your WebRTC session.
link:https://bloggeek.me/webrtc-server/
I currently have a video chat app working on web(Flash) and android via Adobe AIR, it uses Adobe Media Server (RTMP) as backend for video streaming and shared objects, my question is, if there is another server or solution that provides many to many live video broadcast maybe using H.264 codec from android and iOS, have some sort of user list and room list stored in a database or similar, I want to move away from Adobe as it has many limitations on mobile devices.
Live video is crucial in 1 to many broadcasts that will have hundreds of viewers at the same time.
Thanks for reading!
Ulex.fr created an RTMP connector for Asterisk (the free PBX platform).
Used with the Asterisk Vonference application, it allows you to create conference rooms for 1 to many configuration, with audio and video. The only one limitation is the power of your server. You can plan a scalable architecure in order to broadcast one video to many (many could be unlimited). We developp a specific protocol to connect and manage the connection based on the telephony events. I think we already done a direct RTMP connection that skip this protocol too.
All the project done by ulex.fr is free, OpenSource and GPL.
Get the full project here : https://github.com/voximal/asterisk-rtmp
(a live demo is available)
We already develop an RTMP stack for android with video (using the camera), this allows you to create your own application without using AIR.
You can check Adobe Cirrus, it's still in the beta stage (actually IMHO Adobe forgot about it), but it works on web, desktop and mobile too. Check this Video Phone example, it can handle chat applications without a problem.
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/cirrus/samples/
You could take a look at Red5 Media Server, which is an open source solution. There are other options like the Wowza's solutions on AWS, but they come a higher cost...
Ok as today, we have decided that we can manage the users,rooms and messages via Google Firebase Real Time Database, and the live video stream using ANT Media Server
Is WebRTC going to be free for web developers to set up video calls on web pages?
why does Twilio having pricing 25c per mins for video calls,
is it going to be too expensive for the small guy to mange video calls on web hosting servers?
any advice from anyone deep into WebRTC already?
Some of the comments above are not well informed.
Someone wrote, since the bandwidth needed in case of media relay is higher as well. This is not entirely true, transmission happens between Peers(Browsers), servers are used just for signalling(relaying IP addresses of connecting peers and some more info), you can ROUTE your transmission from central server(for fail overs), but can surely do without it for free.
WebRTC is Free and you can setup the whole thing on your own without having to shell out even a penny. It is a bit hard and mitigating fail-overs is really difficult, but you can certainly do it for free.
Tokbox or Twilio charge money because these tools abstract some very rigid complexities of setting up, running and managing fail-overs in a WebRTC application.
In TokBox's Case:
You don't need to setup STUN, TURN servers, you don't have to worry
about integration with android or IOS clients, they provide a plugin
for IE too, so out of box you get everything and you just have to
concentrate on your application logic rather than WebRTC nuances.
This is a big plus.
Both RELAY and ROUTED schemes came in the box hence you can write
fail-over scenarios if RELAY communication fails. Although there are
some good JavaScript based frameworks that do this in a much cleaner
manner.
It adds slew of other goodies which help in building android and IOS
clients without any pain.
STUN or TURN Servers are used only for Signalling Purpose, and this signalling happens before any actual transmission. This signal is very small and carries the IP address of both the browsers(machines running browsers). For Transmission the communication is done between Browsers(Peer to Peer) themselves, so no server is involved.
Your relay is not happening from a central server so you don't have
to pay for the outgoing bandwidth cost.
To Setup Turn Server,
Use this server, build it and put it into a Rackspace/Amazon Web
Services instance and you are Good with your TURN
Server. That is It, setup your application and have fun with WebRTC
for FREE.
rfc5766-turn-server
If you wish to Use some more free framework to ease yourself more, check out: EasyRTC and PeerJS
Enjoy Developing with WebRTC....
Twilio developer evangelist here.
Your link at the end of your question points to our WebRTC page, which currently talks about the product Twilio Client. Twilio Client briefly is a way that, using WebRTC within browsers and mobile applications you can make phone calls to real phone numbers. This product does not allow you to conduct video calls.
Twilio Client has a cost because of the ability to call out from a browser to a telephone number. The cost is not in the WebRTC portion, but delivering those minutes to the other leg of the call.
Notably, it's not 25 cents ($0.25) a minute, instead it is just a quarter of a cent ($0.0025) a minute.
With regards to video calls with WebRTC, you can now access the public beta of Twilio Video, a platform to make setting up WebRTC calls much easier.
Twilio Video costs for the signalling infrastructure and you can see the prices here. If a WebRTC connection requires a TURN server to relay the media, that also costs per gigabyte of transfer. Usage of the STUN server is free, the costs for the TURN relay are available here.
Please get in touch with me at philnash#twilio.com if you have any other questions about WebRTC.
WebRTC is a technology placed in a browser. It requires backend infrastructure to support it - specifically, STUN and TURN servers as well as signaling servers.
This boils down to the fact that you pay for WebRTC - same as you pay for hosting your website on a server. The price is higher, since the bandwidth needed in case of media relay is higher as well.
To understand more about WebRTC and how it works (as well as why there's a price tag associated with services such as Twilio for it), you can check this free report: https://bloggeek.me/webrtc-business-people/
WebRTC is already free for developers to use. When we added WebRTC to our product, we used this example code, which made it very simple to build a WebRTC client:
https://shanetully.com/2014/09/a-dead-simple-webrtc-example/
Google and Mozilla provide free STUN servers, and it is easy to set up a TURN server. Most clients will be able to connect via STUN, so you won't end up using too much bandwidth on your TURN server.
To set up your own TURN server, coturn seems to be the easiest to set up:
https://github.com/coturn/coturn
Make sure you read the "WEBRTC USAGE" section in the README.turnserver file.
"STUN or TURN Servers are used only for Signalling Purpose, and this signalling happens before any actual transmission. This signal is very small and carries the IP address of both the browsers(machines running browsers). For Transmission the communication is done between Browsers(Peer to Peer) themselves, so no server is involved."
if that is the case, then you should be able to do this on a standard web server using Java/php. PHP will get the IP address of the guys connected to it. Then its just a matter of storing them in MySQL, then making a javascript that would run when the user go to that page in the site.
I've been looking for a solution around using a VPS because running a dedicated server for signaling is like golfing with a Ferrari instead of a golf cart. I still don't think node is efficient. Its single threaded. so node's fararri can only go 5mph.
Since they went to the web site, the php service already can get their ip address what else does it need? All of the above solutions so far require you to pay for a dedicated app to run on a server connected to the web separately for what 5k of data? What a waste of electrons.
But I'm going to start a new thread that is going to be based on getting webrtc without the buy a "VPS" because we want a VPS-less solution.
I've got some distance learning software, yesterday I've got near 1000 users watching video simultaneously. My client told me that server was down and memory was exceeded.
It asp.net website and server language is C#. I'm using Response.TransmitFile(...) for streaming videos. Is there any way to simulate 1000 simultaneously video stream situation to figure out what's going on, cause when I'm testing the website everything works fine.
Do not ever use your web server as video streaming server, there is no chance you can succeed.
I personally moved my videos to Amazon Web Services and I'm very satisfied with that.
We are starting a video sharing website where users will be able to upload videos in their native formats. However, since video streaming on the web generally is in the FLV format, we need to convert the videos to FLV.
Also, the site will be hosted on Amazon EC2 and storage using S3.
Can i run FFMpeg on amazon EC2 ? Is this the best way to go ? Are there other alternatives to video encoding rather than doing conversion on our own server ? I also came across www.transloadit.com which seems to do the same but they are charging a bomb. Are there cheaper and more intelligent alternatives ?
We are planning to make this website as one of top 10 biggest niche video streaming websites on the internet.
EC2 instances are just virtual machines so you can do whatever you like on them, including running ffmpeg.
Only you can work out the costs/benefits of doing the conversion on EC2, another server or an encoding service like encoding.com(a google search will turn up more services).
Some thoughts:
EC2
pay by the hour and can easily add new servers (although you need to design your process to support multiple servers)
Fast (and free) transfer between EC2 and S3
Your own servers
You pay for hardware upfront
Not as easy to scale quickly if needed
You need to maintain the hardware
Bandwidth charges between EC2/S3 and your servers
In both DIY solutions you need to deal with the notoriously error prone process and converting videos of different formats.
Video Encoding Service
Probably more expensive (debatable if you factor in development time and support costs)
Easiest way to scale quickly
Up and running quickly
Let them deal with the difficult conversions
I'm going to talk about a slightly different part of your comment. You said:
However, since video streaming on the web generally is in the FLV format...
This is false. You'll get far more portability and bang for your buck if you encode in MPEG-4/H.264.
Flash Player can playback H.264 content, so you can still use a Flash-based player for your website if you want to. However, if you ever decide to open up to mobile devices (iPhone, iPad, Android, webOS, Blackberry 6), HTML5-compatible web browsers (Safari, Chrome, Firefox, Opera, IE9), or pretty much anything newer than 5 years ago, H.264 is definitely the way to go.
The site for Miro Video Converter even documents the FFmpeg setting they use, which may save you some time.
Converting video is a relatively processor-intensive process. Amazon charges for CPU time, and they also charge for data transfer. So it's more of a business tradeoff. Can EC2 run ffmpeg and do the video conversion? Yes, it can. But is it more cost-effective to pay for the CPU time on the EC2 instance or to convert on a local server and then transfer the data to the EC2? I don't know. The answer depends on the sizes of videos that you're working with, the cost of connectivity on your local server, and the pricing scheme on your EC2 virtual server instance.