Pros of mediamtx

• Actively maintained and regularly updated
• Supports multiple streaming protocols (RTSP, RTMP, HLS, WebRTC)
• Cross-platform compatibility (Windows, macOS, Linux)

Cons of mediamtx

• Limited documentation compared to some alternatives
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

Both repositories contain the same codebase, as they are the same project. Here's a sample from the main.go file:

func main() {
    args := os.Args[1:]
    conf, err := conf.Load(args)
    if err != nil {
        log.Fatal(err)
    }

    p, err := core.New(conf)
    if err != nil {
        log.Fatal(err)
    }

Summary

The comparison between bluenviron/mediamtx and bluenviron/mediamtx is not applicable, as they are the same repository. mediamtx is a feature-rich media server supporting various streaming protocols. It offers cross-platform compatibility and regular updates. However, it may have a steeper learning curve for beginners and could benefit from more comprehensive documentation.

Pros of SRS

• More comprehensive feature set, including support for various streaming protocols (RTMP, HLS, WebRTC, etc.)
• Extensive documentation and active community support
• Better scalability for large-scale deployments

Cons of SRS

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity
• Higher resource consumption compared to MediaMTX
• May be overkill for simpler streaming setups

Code Comparison

SRS configuration example:

listen              1935;
max_connections     1000;
srs_log_tank        file;
srs_log_file        ./objs/srs.log;

MediaMTX configuration example:

paths:
  all:
    readUser: myuser
    readPass: mypass

Both projects offer robust media streaming solutions, but SRS provides a more feature-rich and scalable platform suitable for complex deployments. MediaMTX, on the other hand, offers a simpler and more lightweight solution that may be preferable for smaller-scale projects or those with limited resources. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your streaming application.

Pros of EasyDarwin

• More mature project with a longer development history
• Supports a wider range of streaming protocols, including RTSP, RTMP, and HLS
• Offers more comprehensive documentation and user guides

Cons of EasyDarwin

• Less active development and fewer recent updates
• Potentially more complex setup and configuration process
• May have higher resource requirements due to its broader feature set

Code Comparison

EasyDarwin (C++):

int EasyDarwin::StartServer()
{
    QTSServerInterface::Initialize();
    QTSServerInterface::GetServer()->StartTasks();
    return QTSS_NoErr;
}

MediaMTX (Go):

func (s *Server) Start() error {
    s.mutex.Lock()
    defer s.mutex.Unlock()
    return s.start()
}

MediaMTX appears to have a more modern and concise codebase, utilizing Go's simplicity and built-in concurrency features. EasyDarwin's C++ implementation may offer more fine-grained control but at the cost of increased complexity.

Both projects serve as RTSP servers, but MediaMTX focuses on being lightweight and efficient, while EasyDarwin offers a broader range of features at the expense of simplicity. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements and the desired balance between functionality and ease of use.

Pros of media-server

• Written in C, potentially offering better performance and lower resource usage
• Supports a wider range of protocols, including RTMP, RTSP, HLS, and more
• Provides more low-level control and customization options

Cons of media-server

• Less actively maintained, with fewer recent updates
• May require more setup and configuration compared to MediaMTX
• Documentation is less comprehensive and user-friendly

Code Comparison

MediaMTX (Go):

type RTSPServer struct {
    rtspAddress string
    protocols   map[conf.Protocol]struct{}
    sessions    map[*ServerSession]struct{}
    mutex       sync.Mutex
}

media-server (C):

struct rtsp_server_t
{
    void* ptr;
    struct rtsp_handler_t handler;
    void* transport;
    void* rtp;
};

Both projects provide server implementations for media streaming, but they differ in their approach and language. MediaMTX focuses on simplicity and ease of use, while media-server offers more extensive protocol support and lower-level control. MediaMTX is written in Go, making it more accessible for modern developers, while media-server's C implementation may appeal to those seeking maximum performance and fine-grained control.

Pros of Node-Media-Server

• Written in JavaScript, making it more accessible for web developers
• Supports both RTMP and HTTP-FLV protocols out of the box
• Easier integration with Node.js-based applications

Cons of Node-Media-Server

• Generally lower performance compared to MediaMTX due to being JavaScript-based
• Less comprehensive protocol support (e.g., no native WebRTC)
• May require more server resources for the same workload

Code Comparison

Node-Media-Server:

const NodeMediaServer = require('node-media-server');

const config = {
  rtmp: { port: 1935, chunk_size: 60000, gop_cache: true, ping: 30, ping_timeout: 60 },
  http: { port: 8000, allow_origin: '*' }
};

var nms = new NodeMediaServer(config)
nms.run();

MediaMTX:

package main

import (
    "github.com/bluenviron/mediamtx/pkg/mediamtx"
)

func main() {
    mediamtx.Run()
}

The Node-Media-Server example shows more configuration options in the code, while MediaMTX relies on a separate configuration file by default, resulting in a more concise main program.