Skip to content

Conversation

@milos-lk
Copy link
Contributor

@milos-lk milos-lk commented Nov 7, 2025

When egress uses RTMP streams as outputs - it could happen that a remote RTMP server (or something in between) closes connection. Egress is auto retrying already started recordings but frequent retries could cause multiple video files being recorded on the remote (vendor side - we had a specific case of too many small youtube videos being created)

The suggested protocol update would enable us to communicate when this happens so that publishing side could take some action if needed.

@changeset-bot
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Nov 7, 2025

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 945c4e2

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

💥 An error occurred when fetching the changed packages and changesets in this PR
Some errors occurred when validating the changesets config:
The package or glob expression "github.com/livekit/protocol" specified in the `fixed` option does not match any package in the project. You may have misspelled the package name or provided an invalid glob expression. Note that glob expressions must be defined according to https://www.npmjs.com/package/micromatch.

@biglittlebigben
Copy link
Contributor

How is this communicated to the client? Through a webhook?

@milos-lk
Copy link
Contributor Author

milos-lk commented Nov 8, 2025

How is this communicated to the client? Through a webhook?

Yes - that's correct - through web hook

@milos-lk milos-lk marked this pull request as ready for review November 12, 2025 17:47
@milos-lk milos-lk requested a review from a team November 12, 2025 17:47
Comment on lines 414 to 415
int64 last_retry_at = 7;
int64 retries = 8;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe timestamp for last_retry_at and uint for retries?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thought about it - chose int64 for retry_at to be consistent with started_at and ended_at.
retries could be uint though

@milos-lk
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hm - there is a conflict in the autogenerated code - the cleanest way to resolve this would be opening a new PR (not wise to fiddle with autogenerated code)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants