I am observing that file transfers through Jitsi are very slow. I
wondered why, and finding that out, I discovered that the file is
transferred as in-band bytestream through the XMPP connection.
While this obviously works, it makes for a lot of overhead.
Why doesn't file transfer use the same methods as audio/video?
On a side note: Why doesn't audio/video fall back to IBB if ICE fails,
now that IBB is obviously implemented ;)?
Cheers,
Nik
···
--
Wer den Grünkohl nicht ehrt, ist der Mettwurst nicht wert!
I am observing that file transfers through Jitsi are very slow. I
wondered why, and finding that out, I discovered that the file is
transferred as in-band bytestream through the XMPP connection.
While this obviously works, it makes for a lot of overhead.
Why doesn't file transfer use the same methods as audio/video?
Because this hasn't been implemented yet. We did implement pseudo TCP
(Pawel did that in 2012) but we haven't yet got around to integrating
jingle file transfer.
On a side note: Why doesn't audio/video fall back to IBB if ICE fails,
now that IBB is obviously implemented ;)?
That's what TURN tcp is for and it's on our todo list.
> Why doesn't file transfer use the same methods as audio/video?
Because this hasn't been implemented yet. We did implement pseudo TCP
(Pawel did that in 2012) but we haven't yet got around to integrating
jingle file transfer.
What protocol does it exactly use now? Is it XEP-0096?
In other words, is Jitsi's file transfer compatible to other clients?
Cheers,
Nik
···
--
<burny> Ein Jabber-Account, sie alle zu finden; ins Dunkel zu treiben
und ewig zu binden; im NaturalNet, wo die Schatten droh'n ;)!
I personally had some problems with gajim to jitsi file transfers, but
i did not yet have the time to find out which one causes problems.
- --
Yannik V�lker
···
Am 09.02.2014 15:58, schrieb Dominik George:
Hi,
Why doesn't file transfer use the same methods as audio/video?
Because this hasn't been implemented yet. We did implement pseudo
TCP (Pawel did that in 2012) but we haven't yet got around to
integrating jingle file transfer.
What protocol does it exactly use now? Is it XEP-0096?
In other words, is Jitsi's file transfer compatible to other
clients?
> > Why doesn't file transfer use the same methods as audio/video?
>
> Because this hasn't been implemented yet. We did implement pseudo TCP
> (Pawel did that in 2012) but we haven't yet got around to integrating
> jingle file transfer.
What protocol does it exactly use now? Is it XEP-0096?
In other words, is Jitsi's file transfer compatible to other clients?
Cheers,
Nik
--
<burny> Ein Jabber-Account, sie alle zu finden; ins Dunkel zu treiben
und ewig zu binden; im NaturalNet, wo die Schatten droh'n ;)!
> What protocol does it exactly use now? Is it XEP-0096?
Yes it is.
In that case, reading the XEP, resuming a broken transfer should be
perfectly possible. I just had a 150 MiB transfer crasah at 95 MiB due
to connection issues on the other end, and now have to restart it from
the beginning.
As the protocol clearly allows for continuing partial transfers, could
we add that to the roadmap somehow :)?
Cheers,
Nik
···
--
<Natureshadow> Auf welchem Server liegt das denn jetzt…?
<mirabilos> Wenn es nicht übers Netz kommt bei Hetzner, wenn es nicht
gelesen wird bei STRATO, wenn es klappt bei manitu.
> > What protocol does it exactly use now? Is it XEP-0096?
> Yes it is.
In that case, reading the XEP, resuming a broken transfer should be
perfectly possible. I just had a 150 MiB transfer crasah at 95 MiB due
to connection issues on the other end, and now have to restart it from
the beginning.
As the protocol clearly allows for continuing partial transfers, could
we add that to the roadmap somehow :)?
Cheers,
Nik
--
<Natureshadow> Auf welchem Server liegt das denn jetzt...?
<mirabilos> Wenn es nicht übers Netz kommt bei Hetzner, wenn es nicht
gelesen wird bei STRATO, wenn es klappt bei manitu.