How bad is the performance hit with RTMPT?

Forum|Forum|16 years ago
March 1, 2010
1 reply
810 views

In a conversation with engineers recently at a CDN it was suggested to me that streaming all video over RTMPT only was a viable solution to the barriers posed by firewalls and proxies blocking port 1935. They indicated that they had seen no signifigant performance degradation with tunneling and that many of their clients were making the switch from "rollover" type connection models to connection via RTMPT only.

This ran counter to my notion of the process. I have always thought the packet overhead was signifigant.

Is it? How bad is the performance hit for streaming live h.264 video?

This topic has been closed for replies.

A

Anonymous

I recently developed a speed testing application that works on the principle of sending 8kB bytearrays back and forth between client and server, and found the round trip time increased by upwards of 30% when tunneling. YMMV, but I would assume that the same would hold true of video data packets.

R

rexdtripodAuthor

Known Participant

Hmmm... That's quite a hit.

I'm trying to determine the best strategy for reaching the most people with the least performance hit. A guy lays out his strategy here:

http://www.kensodev.com/2010/02/19/rtmp-being-blocked-by-firewalls-flash-media-server/

He basically says ditch 1935. Never use it. Always use 80. Like this:

rtmp://your_ip_address:80/app_name

If that fails, do this:

rtmpt://your_ip_address:80/app_name

Does that seem valid? Does that first option avoid the perfomance hit of tunnelling while getting you more connections? If so, it makes me think there is no benefit at all to connecting via 1935.

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded