If I self host some kind of private video chat service, is the video data transferred direct from connected peer to peer? Does it go through the self hosted service instance? Or does that depend on which video server is used?

  • nutbutter@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Jitsi Meet can be self-hosted. The data will go through your server, but end-to-end encryption can be used.

    Another option is Wirow. Again, data goes through the servers.

    I do not think if there are any peer-to-peer video chat applications. If there were, why would there be a need for self-hosting a server?

    • tmjaea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Jitsi Meet it’s usually p2p for calls between two persons. As soon as a third person joins, the meeting gets routed through the server. You can see this by a slight delay happening when person 3 joins. It won’t happen again for every additional person joining

  • CertifiedDook@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Usually it’s p2p, there’s a moment while initiating the connection where some server is needed for STUN/TURN (i.e. NAT traversal).

    I assume some service may have a fallback for server broadcast instead of p2p, but none that I know of do such a thing.

    • YurkshireLad@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks. I’m just curious how much bandwidth would be consumed by the self hosted server if all video traffic is routed through it. If the video traffic is p2p then the self hosted server would be cheaper to maintain.

      • CertifiedDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Of course check the implementation you end up using if it truly is p2p. Also you can analyze the bandwidth of services on your server, which may be useful in your case.

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    How many participants in your video call?

    If it’s 1 on 1, you want direct connections.

    If it’s a conference of 30 people, you don’t want direct connections, because everybody’s typical plastic home wifi router is very unable to handle 30 incoming plus 30 outgoing video streams at once.

  • iHUNTcriminals@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Self hosted only fans? I want to put on shows for myself to help me save money easier.

    I need to stop shit posting in genuine communities.

  • Andrius Štikonas@lemmy.kde.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Of course it depends on what software you are using.

    Though as a rule of thumb, peers try to connect directly. That’s not always possible due to firewalls/NATs, so often TURN servers are used as intermediary.

  • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That depends entirely on the protocol you’re using… That’s like asking if HTTP works the same way as vittorrent because they both are used to transfer files.

  • @YurkshireLad Depends on the video chat service and on the infrastructure of the participants.

    Most browser based video chat services use WebRTC which usually uses peer to peer if NAT hole punching works - but that depends on the ISP routers.

    This article explains it pretty well: https://blog.nirbheek.in/2023/07/webrtc-signalling.html?m=1

    Services that may be easier to selfhost than Jitsi:

    https://github.com/miroslavpejic85/mirotalk
    https://galene.org/