Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Performance Buffer Improvements #64

Open
chrisspiegl opened this issue Apr 18, 2020 · 1 comment
Open

Performance Buffer Improvements #64

chrisspiegl opened this issue Apr 18, 2020 · 1 comment

Comments

@chrisspiegl
Copy link

I am experimenting a lot with Brave as a tool for my live streaming and broadcasting ideas. So far I think I have understood a lot about it (and even implemented a tone of additional configuration parameters for myself — may PR at some point).

However, I often am running into this error message:

GStreamer warning debug: gstbasesink.c(3005): gboolean gst_base_sink_is_too_late(GstBaseSink *, GstMiniObject *, GstClockTime, GstClockTime, GstClockReturn, GstClockTimeDiff, gboolean) (): /GstPlayBin:playbin2/GstPlaySink:playsink/GstBin:vbin/GstBin:bin2/GstInterVideoSink:mixer100_intervideosink_350894:
0|braveWal | There may be a timestamping problem, or this computer is too slow.
0|braveWal |  WARNING: [  input900] GStreamer warning message: A lot of buffers are being dropped.

Considering that I am on an 3.1 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 MacBook Pro from 2017 and that I am only consuming 3 RTMP streams and displaying one RTMP or TCP output sink?

I am looking for ideas about what I may be able to improve?

I already have set the x264enc to the preset=ultrafast for example.

I am glad about any pointers or help. Thank you 🌸.

@moschopsuk
Copy link
Contributor

Unfortunately brave can just be very CPU hungry, we deploy it usually to large CPU cloud instances. That enables us to use lower powered machines to control it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants