Pros of SRS

• Written in C++, offering better performance and lower resource usage
• Supports a wider range of protocols, including RTMP, HLS, WebRTC, and SRT
• More extensive documentation and active community support

Cons of SRS

• Steeper learning curve due to C++ codebase
• Less straightforward to extend or modify compared to Node.js-based solutions
• May require more complex deployment and configuration

Code Comparison

SRS (C++):

SrsRtmpConn* conn = new SrsRtmpConn(this, skt, ip);
if ((err = conn->start()) != srs_success) {
    srs_freep(conn);
    return srs_error_wrap(err, "start conn");
}

Node-Media-Server (JavaScript):

let session = new NodeRtmpSession(config, socket);
session.run();

SRS offers more granular control and error handling, while Node-Media-Server provides a simpler, more concise API. The C++ code in SRS may be more efficient but requires more careful memory management. Node-Media-Server's JavaScript implementation is easier to read and modify but may not achieve the same level of performance as SRS.

Pros of mediamtx

• Written in Go, offering better performance and lower resource usage
• Supports more protocols, including WebRTC and SRT
• More actively maintained with frequent updates

Cons of mediamtx

• Less mature project with potentially fewer community resources
• May have a steeper learning curve for JavaScript developers

Code Comparison

Node-Media-Server (JavaScript):

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 (Go):

package main

import "github.com/bluenviron/mediamtx/mediamtx"

func main() {
    mediamtx.Run()
}

Summary

Both Node-Media-Server and mediamtx are media streaming servers, but they differ in implementation and features. Node-Media-Server is JavaScript-based and may be more familiar to web developers, while mediamtx is written in Go, offering potentially better performance. mediamtx supports more protocols and is more actively maintained, but it might have a steeper learning curve for those not familiar with Go. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, performance needs, and developer expertise.

Pros of Ant-Media-Server

• More comprehensive feature set, including WebRTC support and adaptive bitrate streaming
• Better scalability for enterprise-level applications
• Active development with frequent updates and community support

Cons of Ant-Media-Server

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity
• Requires more system resources compared to Node-Media-Server
• Some advanced features are only available in the paid Enterprise Edition

Code Comparison

Ant-Media-Server (Java):

@RestController
public class StreamsSourceRestService {
    @GetMapping("/streams/{streamId}")
    public ResponseEntity<?>getStream(@PathVariable String streamId) {
        // Implementation
    }
}

Node-Media-Server (JavaScript):

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();

Both servers provide APIs for stream management, but Ant-Media-Server offers a more structured, Java-based approach with RESTful endpoints. Node-Media-Server uses a simpler JavaScript configuration and setup process, making it easier to get started for developers familiar with Node.js. Ant-Media-Server's code structure reflects its more extensive feature set, while Node-Media-Server focuses on simplicity and ease of use.

Pros of mediamtx

• Written in Go, offering better performance and lower resource usage
• Supports more protocols, including WebRTC and SRT
• More actively maintained with frequent updates

Cons of mediamtx

• Less mature project with potentially fewer community resources
• May have a steeper learning curve for JavaScript developers

Code Comparison

Node-Media-Server (JavaScript):

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 (Go):

package main

import "github.com/bluenviron/mediamtx/mediamtx"

func main() {
    mediamtx.Run()
}

Summary

Both Node-Media-Server and mediamtx are media streaming servers, but they differ in implementation and features. Node-Media-Server is JavaScript-based and may be more familiar to web developers, while mediamtx is written in Go, offering potentially better performance. mediamtx supports more protocols and is more actively maintained, but it might have a steeper learning curve for those not familiar with Go. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, performance needs, and developer expertise.

Pros of media-server

• Written in C++, potentially offering better performance for resource-intensive tasks
• Supports a wider range of protocols, including RTMP, RTSP, RTP, and HLS
• More comprehensive media handling capabilities, including transcoding and adaptive streaming

Cons of media-server

• Less active community and fewer contributors compared to Node-Media-Server
• May require more complex setup and configuration due to its C++ nature
• Limited documentation and examples available, which could make it harder for beginners

Code Comparison

Node-Media-Server (JavaScript):

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();

media-server (C++):

#include "media-server.h"

int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
    media_server_t* server = media_server_create(NULL);
    media_server_run(server);
    media_server_destroy(server);
    return 0;
}

Both examples show basic server setup and initialization, but media-server's C++ implementation may require additional configuration and setup not shown in this simplified example.

Pros of SRT

• Designed for low-latency streaming over unreliable networks
• Supports encryption and forward error correction
• Widely adopted in professional broadcasting industry

Cons of SRT

• More complex to set up and configure
• Primarily focused on transport protocol, not a full media server solution
• May require additional components for complete streaming infrastructure

Code Comparison

SRT (C++):

srt_startup();
SRTSOCKET sock = srt_create_socket();
srt_connect(sock, "127.0.0.1", 9000, 1000);
srt_send(sock, buffer, len);
srt_close(sock);
srt_cleanup();

Node-Media-Server (JavaScript):

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();

Node-Media-Server is a more comprehensive media server solution written in JavaScript, offering easier setup for web developers. It provides RTMP and HTTP-FLV streaming out of the box. SRT, on the other hand, is a C++ library focused on reliable, low-latency transport protocol, which can be integrated into various streaming solutions but requires more setup and additional components for a complete streaming system.