←back to thread

756 points mtlynch | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mudkip ◴[] No.23928745[source]
This is pretty cool (for managing servers cheaply), but I remain disappointed that remotely controlling computers over a network with low latency is still a difficult task. I've been trying to find a way to use a bunch of machines remotely over my LAN (for gaming / media playback on multiple devices), and have been somewhat disappointed at the quality / latency of the various options I've played around with. It's especially disappointing when you have 10gbps networking, and sending uncompressed 1080p60 video over over the network with a couple ms of latency should be trivial, from a bandwidth perspective. Obviously this is a different problem than what you're trying to solve (remote management, so you have to do HDMI + USB stuff in hardware, adding some latency), but it's still annoying that there aren't great lower latency software options.
replies(3): >>23928832 #>>23928964 #>>23929544 #
xiao_haozi ◴[] No.23928832[source]
Steam link does it, and fast enough to play games with no noticeable latency.

Not sure what the magic is, though.

replies(2): >>23929058 #>>23929310 #
1. mudkip ◴[] No.23929058[source]
I haven't tried Steam Link yet, but I might give it a shot. I was originally looking for purely remote desktop stuff for a combination of managing computers and gaming, so I was mostly testing stuff not specifically marketed to gamers. Ideally I'd also like something that does software<->hardware (at higher latency obviously), so I can stream older computers or game consoles to a variety of devices as well.

I did end up trying Parsec, since I saw some people recommending it, and that was terrible. Latency was fine (~10ms software <-> software) and video quality was alright, but audio quality was terrible despite being set to the highest option - which is especially bad, because there's no option to send uncompressed audio, and whatever "optimization work" they were doing to reduce bandwidth made their entire product unusable, despite the fact that there's no need to try saving 1mbps over a wired LAN.

replies(1): >>23932118 #
2. fock ◴[] No.23932118[source]
the cool thing about this solution seems also, that it conveniently alleviates the "need a screen"-problem of the windows-screencapture-approach.