Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (14401)

• Ffmpeg in docker-compose could not be started

  27 mai 2021, par indexlin

  

  



  

  



  I have the following docker-compose file but my ffmpeg container does not seem to start for some reason. It outputs a code of 0 and does not give any other info.

  



  version: '3'

networks:
  b2c:
    driver: bridge

services:
  ffmpeg:
    container_name: b2c-ffmpeg
    image: jrottenberg/ffmpeg

  nginx:
    container_name: b2c-nginx
    image: nginx:1.17.0
    depends_on:
      - "php"
    volumes:
      - ../server/public:/server/public
      - ./config/nginx/conf.d:/etc/nginx/conf.d
      - ./config/nginx/nginx.conf:/etc/nginx/nginx.conf
      - ../data/nginx/logs:/logs
    networks:
      - b2c
    ports:
      - "20001:80"

  php:
    container_name: b2c-php
    image: indexlin/gzyx-php7.2.4:1.1
    working_dir: /server
    volumes:
      - ../server:/server
      #- ./php/docker-php-ext-xdebug.ini:/usr/local/etc/php/conf.d/docker-php-ext-xdebug.ini
    networks:
      - b2c
    ports:
      - "23001:9000"
    #user: "1000:1000"

  mysql:
    container_name: b2c-mysql
    image: mysql:5.7.21
    environment:
      MYSQL_ROOT_PASSWORD: root
    volumes:
      - ../data/mysql/lib:/var/lib/mysql
      #- ../data/mysql/log:/var/log/mysql
      - ./config/mysql/mysqld.cnf:/etc/mysql/mysql.conf.d/mysqld.cnf
    networks:
      - b2c
    ports:
      - "25001:3306"

  redis:
    container_name: b2c-redis
    image: redis:5.0.5
    volumes:
      - ../data/redis:/data
      - ./config/redis/redis.conf:/usr/local/etc/redis/redis.conf
    networks:
      - b2c
    ports:
      - "27001:6379"

  node:
    container_name: b2c-node
    volumes:
      - ../server:/server
      - ../web:/web
    image: node:10.15.3
    networks:
      - b2c
    tty: true
    working_dir: /web
    ports:
      - "29001:29000"


  


• WebRTC predictions for 2016

  17 février 2016, par silvia

  I wrote these predictions in the first week of January and meant to publish them as encouragement to think about where WebRTC still needs some work. I’d like to be able to compare the state of WebRTC in the browser a year from now. Therefore, without further ado, here are my thoughts.

  WebRTC Browser support

  I’m quite optimistic when it comes to browser support for WebRTC. We have seen Edge bring in initial support last year and Apple looking to hire engineers to implement WebRTC. My prediction is that we will see the following developments in 2016 :

  • Edge will become interoperable with Chrome and Firefox, i.e. it will publish VP8/VP9 and H.264/H.265 support
  • Firefox of course continues to support both VP8/VP9 and H.264/H.265
  • Chrome will follow the spec and implement H.264/H.265 support (to add to their already existing VP8/VP9 support)
  • Safari will enter the WebRTC space but only with H.264/H.265 support

  Codec Observations

  With Edge and Safari entering the WebRTC space, there will be a larger focus on H.264/H.265. It will help with creating interoperability between the browsers.

  However, since there are so many flavours of H.264/H.265, I expect that when different browsers are used at different endpoints, we will get poor quality video calls because of having to negotiate a common denominator. Certainly, baseline will work interoperably, but better encoding quality and lower bandwidth will only be achieved if all endpoints use the same browser.

  Thus, we will get to the funny situation where we buy ourselves interoperability at the cost of video quality and bandwidth. I’d call that a “degree of interoperability” and not the best possible outcome.

  I’m going to go out on a limb and say that at this stage, Google is going to consider strongly to improve the case of VP8/VP9 by improving its bandwidth adaptability : I think they will buy themselves some SVC capability and make VP9 the best quality codec for live video conferencing. Thus, when Safari eventually follows the standard and also implements VP8/VP9 support, the interoperability win of H.264/H.265 will become only temporary overshadowed by a vastly better video quality when using VP9.

  The Enterprise Boundary

  Like all video conferencing technology, WebRTC is having a hard time dealing with the corporate boundary : firewalls and proxies get in the way of setting up video connections from within an enterprise to people outside.

  The telco world has come up with the concept of SBCs (session border controller). SBCs come packed with functionality to deal with security, signalling protocol translation, Quality of Service policing, regulatory requirements, statistics, billing, and even media service like transcoding.

  SBCs are a total overkill for a world where a large number of Web applications simply want to add a WebRTC feature – probably mostly to provide a video or audio customer support service, but it could be a live training session with call-in, or an interest group conference all.

  We cannot install a custom SBC solution for every WebRTC service provider in every enterprise. That’s like saying we need a custom Web proxy for every Web server. It doesn’t scale.

  Cloud services thrive on their ability to sell directly to an individual in an organisation on their credit card without that individual having to ask their IT department to put special rules in place. WebRTC will not make progress in the corporate environment unless this is fixed.

  We need a solution that allows all WebRTC services to get through an enterprise firewall and enterprise proxy. I think the WebRTC standards have done pretty well with firewalls and connecting to a TURN server on port 443 will do the trick most of the time. But enterprise proxies are the next frontier.

  What it takes is some kind of media packet forwarding service that sits on the firewall or in a proxy and allows WebRTC media packets through – maybe with some configuration that is necessary in the browsers or the Web app to add this service as another type of TURN server.

  I don’t have a full understanding of the problems involved, but I think such a solution is vital before WebRTC can go mainstream. I expect that this year we will see some clever people coming up with a solution for this and a new type of product will be born and rolled out to enterprises around the world.

  Summary

  So these are my predictions. In summary, they address the key areas where I think WebRTC still has to make progress : interoperability between browsers, video quality at low bitrates, and the enterprise boundary. I’m really curious to see where we stand with these a year from now.

  —

  It’s worth mentioning Philipp Hancke’s tweet reply to my post :

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-return/ … — we saw some clever people come up with a solution already. Now it needs to be implemented

• ffmpeg with double ethernet interfaces works wrong

  21 janvier 2019, par CharlesCui

  A server with double interfaces.

  1. One(eht0) is used for WAN which provides http/ssh services for internet users.

  2. The other(eth1) is used to receive multicast data from intranet.

  218.108.132.177 is public network gateway.

  125.210.198.1 is private network gateway.

  233.49.3.*/24 is multicast address.

  10.0.11.*/24 is the source of multicast data.

  When the route table is like below, ffmpeg can’t read the udp data from eth1, ffmpeg hung up :

  rrca@rcasnap02:~$ route
  
  Kernel IP routing table
  
  Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref    Use Iface
  
  218.108.132.176 *               255.255.255.252 U     0      0        0 eth0
  
  125.210.198.0   *               255.255.255.240 U     0      0        0 eth1
  
  default         218.108.132.177 0.0.0.0         UG    100    0        0 eth0
  
  default         125.210.198.1   0.0.0.0         UG    100    0        0 eth1

  or

  rrca@rcasnap02:~$ route
  
  Kernel IP routing table
  
  Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref    Use Iface
  
  218.108.132.176 *               255.255.255.252 U     0      0        0 eth0
  
  125.210.198.0   *               255.255.255.240 U     0      0        0 eth1
  
  default         218.108.132.177 0.0.0.0         UG    100    0        0 eth0
  
  10.0.11.0       125.210.198.1   0.0.0.0         UG    100    0        0 eth1

  or

  rrca@rcasnap02:~$ route
  
  Kernel IP routing table
  
  Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref    Use Iface
  
  218.108.132.176 *               255.255.255.252 U     0      0        0 eth0
  
  125.210.198.0   *               255.255.255.240 U     0      0        0 eth1
  
  default         218.108.132.177 0.0.0.0         UG    100    0        0 eth0
  
  233.49.3.0      125.210.198.1   255.255.255.0   UG    100    0        0 eth1

  I want to the ffmpeg work right,but now I think the two default route in route table disturb eachother, and I take a try, when the public gateway route is deleted, or the private gateway route is at the head of public default gateway route, ffmpeg works well, I think it read multicast from eth1.But the route table is not thus, ffmpeg can’t read data from eth1, I think it read data on eth0(which is not private network interface).

  How to do ffmpeg works well with two interfaces at the same time ?