Technology

37794 readers

331 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

127

YouTube --> PeerTube Next? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

185 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So Elon gutted Twitter, and people jumped ship to Mastodon. Now spez did... you know... and we're on Lemmy and Kbin. Can we have a YouTube to PeerTube exodus next? With the whole ad-pocalypse over there, seems like Google is itching for it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

How would such a system be more efficient? That is very counter intuitive. In addition the question would be who pays for PeerTube. Because unlike Mastodon or Lemmy and the likes, storing large amounts of video files is actually damn expensive.

[–] F4stL4ne 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure the average successful YouTube content creators can invest in one computer to host his own content on peertube. For start that's all what is needed.

Video storage is a false problem, creators already store their content locally (to not lose the work if there is any issue).

On the technical side, others have answer that question here but in short:

decentralised with peer to peer means that the more a video is shared the more it will be available, even with small size pipes (when I'm watching your content, others can watch it through me),
you don't have to pay for hudge and hardware so less money wasted, but it needs a strong network of pipes, which can improve internet navigation as a all,
instances are nodes of a network, if one fails the others stays up,
better scalability cause p2p,
peertube can run on rather old tech so I'd say it's more efficient.

I will need more precise questions for better answers.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

My assumption was based on the idea to have a proper YouTube replacement. Not some run down video storage for a hand full of large content creators that can afford it.

The scalability you buy via P2P also means an increased storage. So if you want to offer a similar platform that is used in a similar way then you probably would need a multiple of the current storage capacity that YouTube offers. Likely close to an exabyte of storage (assuming that YouTube has just about 300 petabytes. Which likely is a lower number by now.)
Especially for the amount of users consuming the content you would need a good distribution factor. Popular content would need to be distribution over thousands of peers for it to kinda work out. So a lot of people could share the necessary video data, making the storage a problem.
Big servers in a datacenter will always be more efficient because they are designed to be compared to consumer hardware. It's like replacing a central power plant with a small power plant per home. It won't deliver the same efficiency and is a waste of resources. Ecologically speaking.

creators already store their content locally

A lot of creators delete at least the raw footage because they don't have enough space and it would be too expensive. One creator hosting their own content wouldn't even begin to scale in such a scenario. They would need powerful hardware and serious network connectivity. Something the large creators probably could afford, but most couldn't.

peertube can run on rather old tech so I’d say it’s more efficient.

Especially old tech is less efficient than current generations.

tl;dr: I think you were talking about a small solution for large content creators where as I took it as a literal replacement for YouTube.

[–] F4stL4ne 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Well, I think the world isn't some city builder where you can erase something to replace it with something else... We can see it right here, even with a large migration reddit will not be replaced instantly. Even Mastodon didn't replace twitter...

the p2p function in Peertube is shared with viewer's browsers so the storage needed will be shared by everyone. Or I'm missing something,
datacenters will still be useful indeed, but maybe for things we collectively acknowledge are important,
Peertube isn't made for raw footage and I never said so, so I don't see your point here,
do you think if a successful YouTube content creators get a mirror for his content on Peertube, everyone of his viewers would switch instantly? I don't think so, and even if that's the case what's the big deal? Some lags that's all,
old tech is less efficient but a new program running on old tech will be much more efficient (because relaying on less efficient hardware).

I talk about the benefits of using Peertube.

I'd say I can say "it's possible" and you can say "it won't work" forever but we will not know until tested enough. The problem with the doubt posture is that it is often a excuse to just do nothing.

Also you only question the technical side, so I'm assuming you're not so pleased with YouTube either. What's the harm trying something else ? We only know what we are losing in this kind of situations anyway...