←back to thread

261 points tosh | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
cogman10 ◴[] No.42068537[source]
This is such a weird way to do things.

Here they have a nicely compressed stream of video data, so they take that stream and... decode it. But they aren't processing the decoded data at the source of the decode, so instead they forward that decoded data, uncompressed(!!), to a different location for processing. Surprisingly, they find out that moving uncompressed video data from one location to another is expensive. So, they compress it later (Don't worry, using a GPU!)

At so many levels this is just WTF. Why not forward the compressed video stream? Why not decompress it where you are processing it instead of in the browser? Why are you writing it without any attempt at compression? Even if you want lossless compression there are well known and fast algorithms like flv1 for that purpose.

Just weird.

replies(4): >>42068622 #>>42068813 #>>42069256 #>>42070259 #
isoprophlex ◴[] No.42068622[source]
Article title should have been "our weird design cost us $1M".

As it turns out, doing something in Rust does not absolve you of the obligation to actually think about what you are doing.

replies(1): >>42069227 #
1. dylan604 ◴[] No.42069227[source]
TFA opening graph "But it turns out that if you IPC 1TB of video per second on AWS it can result in enormous bills when done inefficiently. "