this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
553 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It wouldn't cost any CPU with custom software that Google can afford to write. The video is streamed by delivering blocks of data from drives where the data isn't contiguous. It's split across multiple drives on multiple servers. Video files are made of key frames and P frames and B in between the key frames. Splicing at key frames need no processing. The video server when sending the next block only needs a change to send blocks based on key frames. It can then inject ads without any CPU overhead.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Wouldn't it still need overhead to chose those blocks and send them instead of the video? Especially if they're also trying to do it in a way that prevents the user from just hitting the "skip 10 seconds" button like they might if it was served as part of the regular video.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

It has to know which blocks to chose to get the next part of the file anyway. Except the next part of the file is an ad. So yes there is overhead but not for the video stream server. It doesn't need to re encode the video. It's not any more taxing than adding the non skip ads at the beginning that they already do.

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

Compared to the cost of reencoding the video (or even segments of it) it would be basically nothing, though.

[–] ngwoo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You're forgetting the part where the video is coming from a cache server that isn't designed to do this

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

They're already appending ads to the front of the video. Instead of appending an ad at key frame 1 they append the ad at key frame 30,000.