2024-01-28, 11:02 PM
2024-02-01, 02:52 PM
Many of these projects have a lot of code layers when it comes to transcoding. Too many layers, possibly, and definitely too few users/developers that can really tear into the details. It's not a new thing, this has been a problem for almost all media handling systems. Too many variables and a whole lot of "we don't know how/why it works, and we're not prepared to screw around with it at this time". Not saying that's a good thing, just something I've observed over the years.
2024-02-01, 11:15 PM
(2024-02-01, 02:52 PM)wkearney99 Wrote: Many of these projects have a lot of code layers when it comes to transcoding. Too many layers, possibly, and definitely too few users/developers that can really tear into the details. It's not a new thing, this has been a problem for almost all media handling systems. Too many variables and a whole lot of "we don't know how/why it works, and we're not prepared to screw around with it at this time". Not saying that's a good thing, just something I've observed over the years. The issue I'm having is that stuff just isn't playing. Someone remote will try to play something, and it will say it's fine to direct stream. The bit rates will be like 1/10 of what we have them set as max. on both ends. The client will say nothing. It will just try to play something a few times and give up. The logs show no reason why this is happening. The only thing it shows is... [2024-01-30 17:59:24.337 -05:00] [WRN] WS "IPADDRESS" error receiving data: "The remote party closed the WebSocket connection without completing the close handshake." ...after the client attempts to play something multiple times. Just says "playback stopped reported by app." We also can't figure out why stuff below a certain bit rate was playing, but it would force a transcode above like 1/10 our set max bandwidth. I was thinking possibly ISP detection and throttling, but I'm not willing to buy an SSL certificate to just to be proven wrong.
2024-02-02, 01:06 AM
How are your remote clients connecting? Any chance you could, if just for a test, have them connect through a VPN tunnel into the network running Jellyfin? My thought there is take any 'handling' of the traffic that might be happening through any of the ISPs in-between. Bit of a long shot, perhaps.
(2024-02-02, 01:06 AM)wkearney99 Wrote: How are your remote clients connecting? Any chance you could, if just for a test, have them connect through a VPN tunnel into the network running Jellyfin? My thought there is take any 'handling' of the traffic that might be happening through any of the ISPs in-between. Bit of a long shot, perhaps. I don't even understand what you're asking, how they're connecting. Any client I have isn't going to be able to set up a VPN tunnel. Assuming they even have the hardware to do so. Not an option.
2024-02-02, 12:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 2024-02-02, 12:28 PM by wkearney99.)
You may want to claim "not an option" but you're not going to get a full picture of what's going on unless you actually troubleshoot it.
Free software doesn't hold your hand or come with 'on demand' support. I gave you a suggestion as to how to eliminate networking bottlenecks as a potential problem and you rejected it out of hand. I suppose I'm done then.
1
2024-02-02, 03:40 PM
(2024-02-02, 12:28 PM)wkearney99 Wrote: You may want to claim "not an option" but you're not going to get a full picture of what's going on unless you actually troubleshoot it. +1 instead of the user coming back with more information they came back with a threat that they will just use a "competitor" except the mistake is in thinking jellyfin is in competition with any others, it's simply an alternative for those who want to use it basically if jellyfin works for you great, if not use something else and when that something else doesn't work jellyfin will be here when you come back nobody expecting competition with paid software is likely to contribute any way so those users are welcome to come and go as they wish
2024-02-02, 10:02 PM
(This post was last modified: 2024-02-02, 10:07 PM by ramicio. Edited 1 time in total.)
(2024-02-02, 03:40 PM)tmsrxzar Wrote:(2024-02-02, 12:28 PM)wkearney99 Wrote: You may want to claim "not an option" but you're not going to get a full picture of what's going on unless you actually troubleshoot it. I asked you more than once what information you needed from the logs and what information should be redacted from logs for privacy's sake and you never felt like answering those questions. (2024-02-02, 12:28 PM)wkearney99 Wrote: You may want to claim "not an option" but you're not going to get a full picture of what's going on unless you actually troubleshoot it. How is a non-tech-savvy client, who isn't me, not having the hardware to run a VPN tunnel, me rejecting things to try? I simply stated what was factually impossible to test. Am I supposed to gift them some sort of enterprise-grade router? You can literally see my statement. I didn't say anything remotely close to "That's stupid, I'm not trying that." What I state is that it CAN'T be tried.
2024-02-02, 10:16 PM
Are you using a reverse proxy?
|
|
|