Hi there everyone, this seems to be the “elephant in the room” discussion, while there has been a HUGE amount of development and progress in OM since March (thank you so much @Maxim) ... there is the whole issue of, for example, the number of users per room... which seems to be about 5-6 (and maybe even to 7) when pushed to the limit... with both audio and video being broadcasted from all users... and, something else.. if there are simultaneous classes/sessions being held on the same server... will this restrict things even further? Is this an overall limitation to using a browser based approach... or should we be taking approach?
It was my intention to test out the OM “demo servers” over the last 2 weeks but will take today off and try to test 10 real device connections... with a combination of desktops, laptops, android tablets and maybe even the odd iPhone or two. My million dollar question is... prior to WebRTC and Kurento... was it possible to have 5-10 users in a room with audio and video working seamlessly in previous versions (for example, the old “flash” setup (which will be redundant after Christmas... Chrome etc notifications) and if so, what has changed? If there is anyone out there that has no problem with user numbers (using audio and vid)... exceeding a body of 7-10+, please let us know. In the meantime, I’ll give you my feedback on my tests. I really appreciate everything that has been done to date. Thanks. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 9, 2020, at 4:50 PM, dww <dwort...@mykolab.com> wrote: > > Hello Maxim, > > A couple of weeks ago there was an email thread about the 5 total users > for one room, each user with video/microphone under the > Subject: "docker container clustering experiments #1". In this case it > appears the bottleneck is the CPU usage on the client machine with the > browser. > > In a response to Denis Noctor on a similar thread you mentioned to try > the following: > > "please check allowed amount of opened files for the user who starts > OM/KMS/TURN > increasing it might help" > > Might this help with the issue we discussed? Where approximately do I > set the allowed amount of opened files? > > Also are there any other things that can be tried to improve this > scalability? Are there areas in the code that can be examined to > investigate how to improve this? > > Thanks, > Dennis > >
