0

I am considering implementing Freshly Tilled Soil's jq webrtc plugin for a site I am building. Ive tested it and it works quite nicely... my only worry and question is that this will eat up all my clients bandwidth.

So compared to average site visits, does anyone know how webrtc compares?

I KNOW the standard is supposed to use as little bandwidth as possible, but I was hoping to hear from some developers who have used it on their sites.

Todd Vance
  • 4,627
  • 7
  • 46
  • 66
  • Have you benchmarked it? – Aaron Miller Aug 22 '13 at 15:36
  • I have not but I will look into that now. thanks! – Todd Vance Aug 22 '13 at 16:01
  • 1
    It uses very little because WebRTC relies on peer-to-peer technology. Generally, your server's used to handle the signalling (i.e., establishment of the connection), but after that, everything is handled between the clients' computers and the network they run through. As such, the bandwidth hit on your site is quite low. – HartleySan Aug 24 '13 at 03:23
  • Can you add that as an answer please so I can set it as so. – Todd Vance Aug 25 '13 at 00:54

1 Answers1

2

WebRTC by itself is a peer-to-peer as mentioned by Hartley and with the use of javascript libraries such as peerJS, typically developers do not need a server.

However the client themselves will consume high bandwidth if you are having multiple video chat. For example in a 5 way video chat, each client would have to upload 4 stream to the other peers and download 4 stream from the other peers.

Steve Ng
  • 1,189
  • 1
  • 13
  • 35