←back to thread

492 points storf45 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
dylan604 ◴[] No.42157048[source]
People just do not appreciate how many gotchas can pop up doing anything live. Sure, Netflix might have a great CDN that works great for their canned content and I could see how they might have assumed that's the hardest part.

Live has changed over the years from large satellite dishes beaming to a geosat and back down to the broadcast center($$$$$), to microwave to a more local broadcast center($$$$), to running dedicated fiber long haul back to a broadcast center($$$), to having a kit with multiple cell providers pushing a signal back to a broadcast center($$), to having a direct internet connection to a server accepting a live http stream($).

I'd be curious to know what their live plan was and what their redundant plan was.

replies(6): >>42157110 #>>42157117 #>>42157164 #>>42159101 #>>42159285 #>>42159954 #
colesantiago ◴[] No.42157164[source]
This is the whole point of chaos engineering that was invented at Netflix, which tests the resiliency of these systems.

I guess we now know the limits of what "at scale" is for Netflix's live-streaming solution. They shouldn't be failing at scale on a huge stage like this.

I look forward to reading the post mortem about this.

replies(1): >>42157426 #
dylan604 ◴[] No.42157426[source]
Everyone keeps mentioning at scale. I seriously doubt this was an "at scale" problem. I have strong suspicion this was a failure at the origination point being able to push a stable signal. That is not an "at scale" issue, but a hubris of we can do better/cheaper than broadcasting standard practices
replies(6): >>42157737 #>>42158523 #>>42159296 #>>42159379 #>>42159456 #>>42160379 #
1. ssl-3 ◴[] No.42160379[source]
Perhaps it was, or perhaps it was not.

I was watching a pirated, live retransmission of the event on Twitch (in Portuguese), and there was zero buffering on my end.