Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> One complicating factor here is that raw video is surprisingly high bandwidth.

It's weird to be living in a world where this is a surprise but here we are.

Nice write up though. Web sockets has a number of nonsensical design decisions, but I wouldn't have expected that this is the one that would be chewing up all your cpu.




I think it's just rare for a lot of people to be handling raw video. Most people interact with highly efficient (lossy) codecs on the web.


Even compressed video is massive data though.


I was surprised when calculating and sizing the shared memory for my Gaming VM for use with "Looking-Glass". At 165hz 2k HDR it's many gigabytes per second, that's why HDMI and DisplayPort is specced really high


I'd still like to get a looking glass. What did you end up with?


I always knew video was "expensive", but my mark for what expensive meant was a good few orders of magnitude off when I researched the topic for a personal project.

I can easily imagine the author being in a similar boat, knowing that it isn't cheap, but then not realizing that expensive in this context truly does mean expensive until they actually started seeing the associated costs.


> It's weird to be living in a world where this is a surprise but here we are.

I think it's because the cost of it is so abstracted away with free streaming video all across the web. Once you take a look at the egress and ingress sides you realize how quickly it adds up.


I’m so confused… they were sending uncompressed video to an AWS server?

If so, they deserve a $1M bill.


It was on a loopback interface. The problem was CPU usage, not bandwidth costs.


Let me rephrase. They were processing uncompressed video via a loopback interface?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: