Pros of nginx-rtmp-module

• Cross-platform support, not limited to Windows
• More active development and community contributions
• Broader feature set, including HLS and DASH support

Cons of nginx-rtmp-module

• Requires more setup and configuration compared to the pre-built Windows version
• May need additional compilation steps for certain features
• Potentially steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

nginx-rtmp-module configuration example:

rtmp {
    server {
        listen 1935;
        application live {
            live on;
            record off;
        }
    }
}

nginx-rtmp-win32 configuration example:

rtmp {
    server {
        listen 1935;
        chunk_size 4096;
        application live {
            live on;
        }
    }
}

The code examples show similar basic configurations, but nginx-rtmp-module offers more flexibility and advanced options for customization.

nginx-rtmp-module is a versatile, cross-platform solution with active development and a wider range of features. It requires more setup but provides greater flexibility. nginx-rtmp-win32 offers a simpler, pre-built solution for Windows users, making it easier to get started but with potentially fewer advanced features and customization options.

Pros of nginx-http-flv-module

• Supports HTTP-FLV streaming, which can be more compatible with various devices and browsers
• Includes additional features like GOP cache and custom streaming status codes
• Actively maintained with more recent updates and bug fixes

Cons of nginx-http-flv-module

• More complex setup and configuration compared to nginx-rtmp-win32
• May require additional server resources due to its extended feature set
• Less focused on Windows-specific optimizations

Code Comparison

nginx-http-flv-module:

http {
    server {
        listen 8080;
        location /live {
            flv_live on;
            chunked_transfer_encoding on;
        }
    }
}

nginx-rtmp-win32:

rtmp {
    server {
        listen 1935;
        application live {
            live on;
        }
    }
}

The code snippets show the basic configuration for each module. nginx-http-flv-module uses the HTTP server block and enables FLV live streaming, while nginx-rtmp-win32 uses the RTMP server block for traditional RTMP streaming.

Both repositories provide NGINX modules for video streaming, but nginx-http-flv-module offers more advanced features and broader compatibility at the cost of increased complexity. nginx-rtmp-win32 is simpler and more focused on Windows environments but may lack some of the newer streaming capabilities.

Pros of docker-nginx-rtmp

• Cross-platform compatibility due to Docker containerization
• Easier deployment and scaling in cloud environments
• Includes HLS (HTTP Live Streaming) support out of the box

Cons of docker-nginx-rtmp

• Requires Docker knowledge and setup
• Potentially higher resource usage due to containerization overhead
• May have more complex configuration for Windows users

Code Comparison

nginx-rtmp-win32:

rtmp {
    server {
        listen 1935;
        chunk_size 4096;
        application live {
            live on;
        }
    }
}

docker-nginx-rtmp:

rtmp {
    server {
        listen 1935;
        chunk_size 4000;
        application live {
            live on;
            hls on;
            hls_path /tmp/hls;
        }
    }
}

The main difference in the code is that docker-nginx-rtmp includes HLS configuration, while nginx-rtmp-win32 focuses solely on RTMP. The docker version also uses a slightly different chunk size.

Both projects provide NGINX with RTMP module support, but docker-nginx-rtmp offers more flexibility in deployment and additional streaming options. However, nginx-rtmp-win32 may be easier to set up for Windows users who don't need Docker or HLS functionality.

Pros of nginx-rtmp-docker

• Cross-platform compatibility: Runs on any system supporting Docker
• Easier deployment and scaling in cloud environments
• Consistent environment across different machines and setups

Cons of nginx-rtmp-docker

• Slightly higher resource overhead due to Docker containerization
• May require additional setup for persistent storage and networking
• Less optimized for Windows-specific environments

Code Comparison

nginx-rtmp-docker:

FROM alpine:3.11
RUN apk add --no-cache nginx-mod-rtmp ffmpeg
COPY nginx.conf /etc/nginx/nginx.conf
EXPOSE 1935
CMD ["nginx", "-g", "daemon off;"]

nginx-rtmp-win32:

@echo off
nginx.exe

The nginx-rtmp-docker project uses a Dockerfile to create a containerized environment, while nginx-rtmp-win32 provides a simple batch file to run the NGINX executable on Windows.

nginx-rtmp-docker offers more flexibility and portability, making it suitable for various deployment scenarios and easier to integrate into modern CI/CD pipelines. However, nginx-rtmp-win32 might be more straightforward for Windows users who prefer a native solution without the need for containerization.

Both projects aim to provide RTMP streaming capabilities using NGINX, but their approaches differ based on the target environment and deployment preferences.

Pros of SRS

• More comprehensive and feature-rich streaming server solution
• Active development with frequent updates and improvements
• Supports multiple protocols beyond RTMP (e.g., HLS, WebRTC)

Cons of SRS

• More complex setup and configuration compared to nginx-rtmp-win32
• Requires more system resources due to its extensive feature set
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

nginx-rtmp-win32 (NGINX configuration):

rtmp {
    server {
        listen 1935;
        application live {
            live on;
        }
    }
}

SRS (Configuration file):

listen              1935;
max_connections     1000;
srs_log_tank        file;
srs_log_file        ./objs/srs.log;
http_server {
    enabled         on;
    listen          8080;
}
vhost __defaultVhost__ {
}

Summary

SRS offers a more comprehensive streaming solution with support for multiple protocols and active development. However, it may be more complex to set up and require more resources compared to nginx-rtmp-win32. The latter is simpler and more lightweight but limited to RTMP streaming. Choose based on your specific needs and technical expertise.