| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
Craton
United States17270 Posts
Sounds like the issue is with the modem since the status lights are going dark, but you can always try directly connecting a modem to the device (bypass router) to rule things out. [Edit] Actually it sounds like lights going dark is just you restarting it, but point stands. | ||
|
necrosexy
451 Posts
On September 21 2017 12:30 thePunGun wrote: Most routers have diagnostics, it'll give you a hint where the signal's cut off. Seems to me like poor wiring in the outlet might be responsible, but that's usually the first thing the Comcast guy checks. I've had the same problems at my old place, the guy fixed it within 5 minutes by replacing the socket ..didn't look too hard, either... you'll probably just need the right parts.  yes, i forgot to ask about the diagnostics ( in192.168.100.1 page) what should i be looking for here? On September 21 2017 15:17 Craton wrote: I wouldn't expect a splitter to be the issue anyway. When they do "roommate plans" with multiple people in a residence having their own Internet plans they just toss a standard splitter on it. Sounds like the issue is with the modem since the status lights are going dark, but you can always try directly connecting a modem to the device (bypass router) to rule things out. [Edit] Actually it sounds like lights going dark is just you restarting it, but point stands. modem/router combo unfortunately (she got it as a recommendation from a Comcast technician ...) | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
For example the traditional method is that someone downloads something, and then someone else downloads that file from another persons computer using their internet connection. Websites like popcorn time however are interesting, because I guess they download the torrent sequentially and not randomly, and it allows you to start watching the video the moment the torrent is initiated more or less. Now when such a technology exists, it's confusing to me why more video service providers don't do this. Rather than strain your network, why not get other people to use their upload speed to host the videos for other people. And set it that for every x MB of video you download, you must upload x - 2x MB of video, and voila, your network infrastructure reduced by 95%, which is by far the biggest cost to a company like Youtube. Sure, you still need the harddrives, though they are much cheaper, or heck, maybe you could even store the videos on other people's computers (say the video program to do this requires 10-20GB of storage space, so you offload some of that storage to your computer, the file could be encrypted for copyright reasons, or if you only have small chunks of specific files maybe it wouldn't be an issue). And now this whole video hosting thing will have little cost, and they can really tone down ads, and all the other bullshit stuff they do to try and get revenue. And then so my other question would be for live streaming. At the moment, and kind of free services are awful quality (1000kbps maximum), because there ads you have only pay so much, so you can't afford to have some massive internet infrastructure... But would it be possible to make a p2p livestream of say a sporting event? For example a 3000kbps stream, with the people watching uploading 6000kbps. So lets say you have an original feed of 60Mbps from the website (very cheap), that allows 20 people to download those files... Assuming these people have that 6000kbps connection, that means they could offload their files to 40 people, and those 40 to 80 people, etc. What I don't know is how long that delay between downloading a file and sending it out would be. I'm not a big programming person, so I wouldn't know, but just a rough ballpark estimate - let's say you're sending the stream in 128kb chunks, so 0.04s for you to download it at 3000kbps, then assume 300ms ping average, but heck, lets round that to 500ms just to take into account that you're limited by the slowest person in the chain. and then 0.04ms for them to download it afterwards (and then they begin uploading it right away). So 600ms~ to receive and send the signal to another person, that'd mean that within 15 seconds, if people are sending out twice as much as they receive, the signal could be spread out to 2^26 people (since 15/0.6 = 25, and then +1 to account all the people that received the signal beforehand). Even only sending out 1.5x the signal you received, one person would be able to distribute it to more than 25k people, assuming perfect conditions. Anyway, it just seems like this would be a big help in decentralizing software (so we aren't limited to what twitch or youtube deems acceptable because of their advertisers, even though it might be fully legal). Rather than using youtube and making ourselves the product, we could easily handle all live streaming ourselves with a decentralized network that would really not cost us much at all. It would raise quality of streams for smaller broadcasters who don't get the economies of scale of youtube, and would imo raise quality across the board. Is anything like this available for live streaming (sport streaming is where my interest stemmed from)? And if not, what obstacles are preventing it from happening? | ||
|
Craton
United States17270 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On September 24 2017 06:49 Craton wrote: Isn't that how acestream works? I just spent the last 2 hours looking at this. Wow, this is an absolutely amazing technology. No idea why every website doesn't do this... Use P2P sharing when possible, and use the HTTP server requests when latency is an issue, for example at the beginning when you're still connecting to peers, or skipping to a different point in the video. | ||
|
Craton
United States17270 Posts
There's also issues with reliability. People on average have much higher download than upload speeds and thus many people who can watch streams cannot also upload streams. If you allow it to be throttled then people are largely going to do that and barely upload. I'm sure there are more, but that's what I think of off the top of my head. I've only seen acestream used for piracy, FWIW. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On September 24 2017 11:48 Craton wrote: Because users in general dislike it tremendously. As the user you're using a lot more bandwidth since you have to both upload and download. There are also legal issues for any non-legitimate streams, since by uploading part of the content the user ends up with greater legal liability (this is where lawyers have gone after people regarding torrenting). There's also issues with reliability. People on average have much higher download than upload speeds and thus many people who can watch streams cannot also upload streams. If you allow it to be throttled then people are largely going to do that and barely upload. I'm sure there are more, but that's what I think of off the top of my head. I've only seen acestream used for piracy, FWIW. Yeah, the copyright stuff gets iffy, but I mean even when you're streaming something, it downloads to your computer (and is deleted quickly after), otherwise if your internet connection dropped out for 100ms, you'd get stutters. What Acestream does as far as I can tell is it keeps 60 minutes of cache from what you're watching, and then deletes it, but you could easily shorten that number, and potentially even encrypt it so the user would never have an extractable copy of the download (it can only be accessed when ran through the media player). When you say it requires a lot more bandwidth... It's twice as much, so I don't feel like it's that significant. You're right about the upload speeds, most ISP's give you 10-20% of your download speed, but fortunately the middle end packages here give 5-10mbps, and given that the normal person doesn't use upload speed for anything else (and it costs the ISP the same amount of money whether it's down or up), 5-10mbps seems more than sufficient. Definitely piracy is the first thing that comes to mind, simply because they're working outside the law, any investments into infrastructure are too uncertain, and establishing any legitimate revenue streams is very difficult because that's a sure way to get on the government radar. Because advertisements are the only revenue stream many of these companies have, they can't afford to give better streams when they'll make 0.2 cents or something from the average viewer. But any smaller website that services video (say crunchyroll), hosting large file downloads like games, high quality audio, seems like they could benefit. Though I'll admit, thinking it through now, the use is more limited than I thought, since the only thing this would be useful for is the consumption of video for the majority of the population, and probably 99% of legitimate video watched on the web is through Youtube, and I think there's too much on YT for p2p to work effectively. Definitely convenient for live streams that don't go through twitch, youtube, etc (but most that isn't there is probably due to piracy), and so you can watch a torrented video without having to wait for it to download first. But a company like twitch, a big reason they were so slow to adopt higher bitrates is because it was too expensive for them. They were always telling people to stream quite low so more people can view your stream (rather than giving everyone some quality options). One year ago 3500mbps was the highest recommended on twitch, to get a very nice 1080p30 you need 6000kbps, a 1080p60 you need 12000kbps, and for a Bluray 1080p60 quality around 20000kbps. A Ryzen 1700 can handle a 14-15mbps encoding without much issue, running some basic esports game in the background. If someone wants to encode at those bitrates (if you have the internet connection, why not), you can have it as a premium quality option that's only possible with p2p (and your max down speed would be determined by what you set your max upload to), something like this would cost them almost nothing, but appease a small audience of people. Same way as the 8700k and Ryzen don't have issue streaming 1440p30, just making the option available is cool. And if they could integrate this nicely within the client so you don't have to go to russian websites and have a good understanding of what you're doing, then it's a nice extra feature in my book. Anyway, it's an interesting concept, I hope it's utilized more in the future. Thanks for the reply ^^ | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20322 Posts
They often use constant bitrate now which is extremely wasteful for quality per bit because handling variable bitrates that would vary all over from 100KB/s to 3500KB/s proved to be too difficult or limited by internetty things outside of the control of the streaming sites AFAIK - they can't control the whole internet chain between them and the user, only a tiny fraction of it. Pascal NVENC can live encode 1080p240 btw, we've gotten to the point where it's more challenging to play back the video on your own local system than it was to record because decoders don't know wtf is happening  | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
I wasn't aware that decoding would be a big issue, at least for the kind of people who would be interested in this p2p stuff. My 6700k is at around 70-80% when viewing a 8k30 video, and 30-40% when watching a 4k60 video on youtube (not sure if that's using x264 or VP9 though)... That would suggest to me that anyone with like a Sandy Bridge or newer i3+ should be okay to watch 4k60hz. I'm not a big laptop person, so not sure how it all plays out on mobile. I guess a big factor is it depends what codecs we use in the future, because I understand than x265 and VP9 are 50% more efficient than x264, but the issue is they use 10x~ the processing power, honestly I don't have a great grasp of this mundane topic, so I don't fully understand articles like these without spending a lot of time on them: https://blogs.gnome.org/rbultje/2015/09/28/vp9-encodingdecoding-performance-vs-hevch-264/ Also cool thing you mentioned about the variable bitrates. That's quite clever indeed, I've never thought about that, too bad. edit: Actually I was doing my little experiment and it's all over the place, I was watching a 8k30 video, and I needed 60-65mbps, but my processor was only at around 15% (so probably using x264), but before that I was watching an 8k video using 16-17mbps (but 70-80% CPU usage), and before that a 4k60 video using 28mbps and also around 15% CPU usage. They don't make it easier to understand D: | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20322 Posts
Not too relevant for livestreaming with x264 (maybe yes with x265), just a funny note for local encoding and video watching | ||
|
Craton
United States17270 Posts
Typically I see 1080p60 streams using about 6000kbps. Lesser 720p60 or 900p60 might use 4000-5000. I would imagine that a 2160p60 stream is going to want approximately 3-4x the bitrate to match the 4x higher resolution, so ~20 mbps. I don't know what the scaling is with regards to bitrate vs resolution; I expect it's more efficient than simply linear growth. The link you posted is basically talking about how the newer encoders have better quality per bitrate used, but are significantly more demanding on the CPU. The % gains on bitrate are much lower than the % loss on CPU usage, FWIW. The fact that it's so CPU intensive means it's probably not going to be suitable for streaming any time soon. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20322 Posts
quick test of a WoW video re-encode i can do about 720p@100fps with a dedicated 6700k@4.5ghz in x265 veryfast and some CPU's now or in the very near future should wreck that but it varies a huge amount with the type of content, e.g. osu is extremely easy to encode but a first person shooter can be many times harder. It's not a lot of throughput but the quality per bit that you get for it blows away the slow x264 presets and is amazing by comparison to fast x264, NVENC or other hardware h264 encoders. | ||
|
mantequilla
Turkey779 Posts
I don't have a separate PC right now neither an android/ios phone. Windows phone can't do much. Tv's native browser can't open streams. Plex twitch channel freezes too much. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11640 Posts
On September 25 2017 18:27 mantequilla wrote: Damn I can't find a way to watch streams on my LG smart tv without pulling out my rig from my room. I don't have a separate PC right now neither an android/ios phone. Windows phone can't do much. Tv's native browser can't open streams. Plex twitch channel freezes too much. Have you considered just having a long cable from your PC to the TV? | ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
Someone sound got disabled, CTRL S fixed it. weird that it doesnt show its enabled or not in the options menu | ||
|
mantequilla
Turkey779 Posts
| ||
|
Craton
United States17270 Posts
I'd just shoot for something that's at least v4. | ||
|
mizU
United States12125 Posts
On September 20 2017 22:54 R1CH wrote: Ask your ISP if they can set their device to "bridge mode". From the issues I've been having it does look like they're because my modem is also acting as a router. Will call ISP and see what we can do about their modem. Thanks | ||
|
mantequilla
Turkey779 Posts
On September 26 2017 04:32 Simberto wrote: Have you considered just having a long cable from your PC to the TV? It's too far away. TV and PC is like two rooms apart  | ||
|
Dingodile
4137 Posts
| ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
RSL Revival
Classic vs SHIN
Maru vs TBD
herO vs TBD
Wardi Open
IPSL
StRyKeR vs OldBoy
Sziky vs Tarson
BSL 21
StRyKeR vs Artosis
OyAji vs KameZerg
OSC
OSC
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
