Browsers talking to static web servers use HTTP byte ranges requests to get chunks of videos and can use the same mechanism to seek to any point in the file.
Streaming that way is fast and simple. No fancy technology required.
For MP4 to work that we you need to render it as fragmented MP4.
Probably because byte range is required for seeking, and playing from the beginning is equivalent to seeking at 0.
> Wouldn't that be additional overhead/round-trips?
No because the range of the initial byte range request is the whole file (`bytes=0-`).
> To my knowledge, video stream requests chunks by range and is largely client controlled. It isn't a single, long lived http connection.
Wouldn't a byte range request for the whole file fall under the "single, long lived http connection"? Sure it could be terminated early and another request made for seeking, but regardless the video can start before the whole file is downloaded, assuming it's encoded correctly?
It is possible if you are in control of the client, but no browser would stream an mp4 file request by request.
> with an almost always full TCP send buffer at the OS level
This shouldn't be a problem because there is flow control. Also the data would probably be sent to the kernel in small chunks, not the whole file at once.
I believe most browsers do it like that, these days: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Media/Guides/Au...
> This shouldn't be a problem because there is flow control.
It's leveraging flow control, but as I mentioned this might be less efficient (in terms of server memory usage and concurrent open connections, depending on client buffer size and other variables) than downloading larger chunks and closing the HTTP connection in between them.
Many wireless protocols also prefer large, infrequent bursts of transmissions over a constant trickle.
Nope. Browsers send a byte range request for the whole file (`0-`), and the correspoding time range grows as the file is being downloaded. If the user decided to seek to a different part of the file, say at byte offset 10_000, the browser would send a second byte range request, this time `10000-` and a second time range would be created (if this part of the file has not already been downloaded). So there is no evidence there that any browser would stream files in small chunks, request by request.
> in terms of server memory usage
It's not less efficient in terms of memory usage because the server wouldn't read more data from the filesystem than it can send with respect to the flow control.
> concurrent open connections
Maybe if you're on HTTP/1, but we live in the age of HTTP/2-3.
> Many wireless protocols also prefer large, infrequent bursts of transmissions over a constant trickle.
AFAIK browsers don't throttle download speed, if that's what you mean.
> AFAIK browsers don't throttle download speed, if that's what you mean.
Yeah, I suppose by implementing a relatively large client-application-side buffer and reading from that in larger chunks rather than as small as the media codec allows, the same outcome can be achieved.
Reading e.g. one MP3 frame at a time from the TCP buffer would effectively throttle the download, limited only by Nagle's Algorithm, but that's probably still much too small to be efficient for radios that prefer to sleep most of the time and then receive large bursts of data.
Yes, it would (though a better description would be "a single, long lived http request" because this doesn't have anything to do with connections), and wewewedxfgdf also replied Yes.
> Sure it could be terminated early and another request made for seeking, but regardless the video can start before the whole file is downloaded, assuming it's encoded correctly?
Yes.
Just putting a url in my Chromium based browser’s address bar to an mp4 file we have hosted on CloudFlare R2 “just works” (I expect a video tag would be the same), supporting skipping ahead in the video without having to download the whole thing.
Initially skipping ahead didn’t work until I disabled caching on CloudFlare CDN as that breaks the “accept-range” capability on videos. For now we have negligible amount of viewership of these mp4s, but if it becomes an issue we’ll use CloudFlare’s video serving product.
No. When you play a file in the browser with a video tag. It requests the file. It doesn’t ask for a range. It does use the range if you seek it, or you write the JavaScript to fetch based on a range. That’s why if you press play and pause it buffers the whole video. Only if you write the code yourself can you partially buffer a while like YouTube does.
> That’s why if you press play and pause it buffers the whole video.
Browsers don't do that.
I suppose if you watch it from start to finish without seeking it might cache the entire file, but it may alternatively keep a limited amount cached of the video and if you go back to an earlier time it may need to re-request that part.
Your confidence seems very high on something which more than one person has corrected you on now, perhaps you need to reassess the current state of video serving, keeping in mind it does require HTTP servers to allow range requests.
https://www.zeng.dev/post/2023-http-range-and-play-mp4-in-br...
You can also watch it happen - the Chrome developer tools network tab will show you the traffic that goes to and from the web browser to the server and you can see this process in action.
> It’s not true because throwing a video file as a source on video tag has no information about the file being requested until the headers are pushed down.
And yet, if you stick a web server in front of a video and load it in chrome, you’ll see just that happening.
<video controls>
<source src="/video/sample.mp4" type="video/mp4">
Your browser does not support the video tag.
</video>