Error installing Miro SFU

[avatar1024]

@jdaviescoates said in Error installing Miro SFU:

PS I wonder if MiroP2P and MiroSFU should each have their own category?

What do you mean by category here?

[jdaviescoates]

@avatar1024 said in Error installing Miro SFU:

What do you mean by category here?

Forum category. At present there is just one MiroTalk one.

[nebulon]

We will keep only one forum category just like with the Minecraft flavors. In the long run I guess we will package the umbrella MiroTalk frontend, which supports p2p,sfu,broadcast,... all in one user interface, but first we want to verify they work individually.

[jdaviescoates]

@nebulon any help or advice on resolving my issue?

[nebulon]

Have you tried to adjust the port if there is a conflict? Note that MiroTalk will allocate 100 ports for both tcp and udp starting with the port configured in Cloudron for that app.

[girish]

@jdaviescoates @nebulon I managed to reproduce this. Debugging. Mine failed in another udp port:

Docker Error: (HTTP code 500) server error - driver failed programming external connectivity on endpoint 7ea6806a-a184-4c97-88ad-c4e8f2fb8aef (306f6447d8ce8e82248df7f084902ba92fd525c9889b327f592f9a260adfeb13): listen udp4 0.0.0.0:40082: bind: address already in use 

[girish]

docker is using that port for syslog . We use --syslog-address=udp://127.0.0.1:2514 in our containers.

dockerd      886       root  110u  IPv4 1325046      0t0  UDP 127.0.0.1:40082->127.0.0.1:2514 

[girish]

@jdaviescoates workaround is to reinstall the app with a different port range and keep your it doesn't conflict again. Note that the TCP and UDP port ranges should be the same! I recommend something like 12000 .

[luckow]

@girish 12000 is a good advice.
btw. what is the recommended way if the installation does not work? the error state does not allow to save the port range. the only thing that works: uninstall, reinstall (with a different port range)

[girish]

@luckow yes, one has to uninstall and reinstall again. Maybe we can fix the 'repair' logic to handle this error but this error shouldn't happen in the first place. Fix coming...

[girish]

https://git.cloudron.io/cloudron/box/-/commit/104997d77c52d39a581fa86556101357c38220a9 is the fix. This will greatly alleviate the conflicts.

[MiroTalk]

Hi @nebulon, @girish

1. Purpose:

   • The purpose here is to configure MiroTalk SFU to utilize WebRTCServer for handling WebRTC connections per Worker (CPU). This can potentially optimize resource usage and improve scalability.

2. WebRTCServer:

   • WebRTCServer is a class introduced in Mediasoup version 3.10.0. It allows listening into a single port for WebRTC connections. This is advantageous for cases where multiple workers (CPUs) are involved, as each worker can have its own WebRTCServer instance.

3. MiroTalk SFU Configuration:

   • webRtcServerActive: true: This parameter indicates whether to activate the WebRTCServer. Setting it to true activates the feature.

   • webRtcServerOptions: This object holds the configuration options for the WebRTCServer.

   • listenInfos: This array contains objects specifying the listening information for the WebRTCServer.

     • Each object within listenInfos represents a listening endpoint for the WebRTCServer, specifying the protocol (UDP or TCP), IP address, and port.

     • In the provided example, both UDP and TCP protocols are used, with the same IP address (IPv4) and port number (44444) for simplicity. In practice, you might need to adjust these values based on your network setup.

4. Scaling with Workers:

   • If MiroTalk SFU starts a Worker for each CPU, each Worker will have its own WebRTCServer instance.

   • The port number for each WebRTCServer is incremented by one for each additional Worker. For instance, if you have 4 CPUs and thus 4 Workers, the ports used would be 44444, 44445, 44446, and 44447 respectively.

5. Port Range:

   • By default, each WebRTCServer internally handles the rtcMinPort and rtcMaxPort. This means that you only need to open ports for the number of Workers you have, rather than a range of ports for each Worker.

Overall, this configuration optimizes the handling of WebRTC connections in MiroTalk SFU by distributing them among multiple Workers, each with its own WebRTCServer instance listening on a specified port.

Here the corrispective configuration for MiroTalk SFU in app/src/config.js:

webRtcServerActive: true, // Set to true to activate it
webRtcServerOptions: {
    listenInfos: [
        { protocol: 'udp', ip: IPv4, port: 44444 },
        { protocol: 'tcp', ip: IPv4, port: 44444 },
    ],
},

In this configuration:

• webRtcServerActive: true activates the WebRTCServer feature.
• webRtcServerOptions contains the configuration options for the WebRTCServer.
• listenInfos specifies the listening endpoints for the WebRTCServer, including both UDP and TCP protocols on the specified IPv4 address and starting port 44444.

Here's the configuration with the additional setup for being behind a NAT:

// Behind NAT with Announced Address
webRtcServerActive: true, // Set to true to activate it
webRtcServerOptions: {
    listenInfos: [
        { protocol: 'udp', ip: '0.0.0.0', announcedAddress: IPv4, port: 44444 },
        { protocol: 'tcp', ip: '0.0.0.0', announcedAddress: IPv4, port: 44444 },
    ],
},

In this configuration:

• webRtcServerActive: true activates the WebRTCServer feature.
• webRtcServerOptions contains the configuration options for the WebRTCServer.
• listenInfos specifies the listening endpoints for the WebRTCServer, including both UDP and TCP protocols.
• ip: '0.0.0.0' indicates that the server should listen on all available network interfaces.
• announcedAddress: IPv4 specifies the announced address to be used in signaling. This is typically the public IPv4 address of the server.
• port: 44444 specifies the starting port number to listen on for both UDP and TCP protocols.

This configuration is suitable for environments where the server is behind a NAT and needs to announce its public IPv4 address for signaling purposes.

Cheers,
Miroslav Pejic

[nebulon]

@MiroTalk thanks for the elaborate description, but not sure I follow exactly. Do you suggest to not use a port range but use a specific webRtcServer feature which can handle everything on one port and also scales better or is this independent of the current config we use, which sets up a port range and configures config.mediasoup.worker.rtcMin/MaxPort? Or is both useful to have?

[MiroTalk]

@nebulon The port range configuration should still be maintained. However, with the Worker WebRTCServer feature enabled, there’s no need to manually open ports on the router. The Worker WebRTCServer handles port allocation internally. Essentially, by enabling this option, you only need to open a single port starting from 44444, with the number of ports equating to the number of server CPUs. This approach eliminates the necessity to open numerous ports per worker, streamlining the setup to just one port per worker. You can add this option as well and try if better. More about here

[nebulon]

@MiroTalk so you are saying this WebRTCServer acts similar to a reverse proxy allowing all incoming connections via one single port and internally distributes to workers locally? If this is the case, then I guess we have to change the app to only use 44444 and then the exposed (and forwarded) port range is not required?

[MiroTalk]

@nebulon More or less yes.

1. SFU Instance Deployment: When you deploy MiroTalk SFU on a server, it dynamically creates WebRtcServers based on the available CPU cores of the server if you enable this option in the config.js

2. Example CPU Core Count: For instance, if the server where you deploy MiroTalk SFU has 2 CPU cores, MiroTalk will create 2 WebRtcServers dynamically (config.mediasoup.numWorkers)

3. Port Allocation: These WebRtcServers are started from a base port number (in this case, 44444) and are internally incremented by logic for each server created.

4. Console Logs Example:

[3/26/2024, 17:37:17:682] [Server] Create a WebRtcServer {
  worker_pid: 41060,
  webRtcServerOptions: {
    listenInfos: [
      {
        protocol: 'udp',
        ip: '0.0.0.0',
        announcedAddress: 'Your-Public-IPv4',
        port: 44444
      },
      {
        protocol: 'tcp',
        ip: '0.0.0.0',
        announcedAddress: 'Your-Public-IPv4',
        port: 44444
      }
    ]
  }
}
[3/26/2024, 17:37:17:730] [Server] Create a WebRtcServer {
  worker_pid: 41061,
  webRtcServerOptions: {
    listenInfos: [
      {
        protocol: 'udp',
        ip: '0.0.0.0',
        announcedAddress: 'Your-Public-IPv4',
        port: 44445
      },
      {
        protocol: 'tcp',
        ip: '0.0.0.0',
        announcedAddress: 'Your-Public-IPv4',
        port: 44445
      }
    ]
  }
}
...

• The console logs I provided illustrate the creation of two WebRtcServers.
• Each server is associated with a unique worker process ID (worker_pid).
• Each server is configured with both UDP and TCP protocols, listening on all available IPv4 addresses (0.0.0.0) and a specific port number.
• The port numbers for each server are incremented sequentially. In this example, the first server listens on port 44444, and the second server listens on port 44445.

5. Listen Infos: Each WebRTC server's configuration (webRtcServerOptions) includes details about the protocols it supports, the IP address it listens on, the announced address (typically the public IPv4 address of your server), and the port it's listening on.

In this scenario, the application requires permission to allow traffic on ports 44444 and 44445.

[nebulon]

So on Cloudron, the firewall is actually closed down and each exposed port needs to be explicitly mentioned. Is there any configuration to limit the ports it will use?

Also I am still not sure if this is independent of the port range for the rtcMin/MaxPort configs or if this replaces it?

[IniBudi]

I also get an error message:

An error occurred during the install operation: Docker Error: (HTTP code 500) server error - driver failed programming external connectivity on endpoint 943b1ae7-08e5-4d54-8d7f-98938b449d22 (78f68ad50a0916d674692c2342ba809b82238d3e6bd7c9aacf25b67b8499821a): listen tcp4 0.0.0.0:40090: bind: address already in use

[nebulon]

There is a fix coming for the port clash issue. For the moment try to use a different port range in the app configs.

[IniBudi]

@nebulon noted, thank you!