Why would the browser send byte range requests for video tags if it expects to play the file back linearly from beginning to end anyway? Wouldn't that be additional overhead/round-trips?
Probably because byte range is required for seeking, and playing from the beginning is equivalent to seeking at 0.
> Wouldn't that be additional overhead/round-trips?
No because the range of the initial byte range request is the whole file (`bytes=0-`).
> To my knowledge, video stream requests chunks by range and is largely client controlled. It isn't a single, long lived http connection.
Wouldn't a byte range request for the whole file fall under the "single, long lived http connection"? Sure it could be terminated early and another request made for seeking, but regardless the video can start before the whole file is downloaded, assuming it's encoded correctly?
It is possible if you are in control of the client, but no browser would stream an mp4 file request by request.
> with an almost always full TCP send buffer at the OS level
This shouldn't be a problem because there is flow control. Also the data would probably be sent to the kernel in small chunks, not the whole file at once.
I believe most browsers do it like that, these days: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Media/Guides/Au...
> This shouldn't be a problem because there is flow control.
It's leveraging flow control, but as I mentioned this might be less efficient (in terms of server memory usage and concurrent open connections, depending on client buffer size and other variables) than downloading larger chunks and closing the HTTP connection in between them.
Many wireless protocols also prefer large, infrequent bursts of transmissions over a constant trickle.
Nope. Browsers send a byte range request for the whole file (`0-`), and the correspoding time range grows as the file is being downloaded. If the user decided to seek to a different part of the file, say at byte offset 10_000, the browser would send a second byte range request, this time `10000-` and a second time range would be created (if this part of the file has not already been downloaded). So there is no evidence there that any browser would stream files in small chunks, request by request.
> in terms of server memory usage
It's not less efficient in terms of memory usage because the server wouldn't read more data from the filesystem than it can send with respect to the flow control.
> concurrent open connections
Maybe if you're on HTTP/1, but we live in the age of HTTP/2-3.
> Many wireless protocols also prefer large, infrequent bursts of transmissions over a constant trickle.
AFAIK browsers don't throttle download speed, if that's what you mean.
> AFAIK browsers don't throttle download speed, if that's what you mean.
Yeah, I suppose by implementing a relatively large client-application-side buffer and reading from that in larger chunks rather than as small as the media codec allows, the same outcome can be achieved.
Reading e.g. one MP3 frame at a time from the TCP buffer would effectively throttle the download, limited only by Nagle's Algorithm, but that's probably still much too small to be efficient for radios that prefer to sleep most of the time and then receive large bursts of data.
Yes, it would (though a better description would be "a single, long lived http request" because this doesn't have anything to do with connections), and wewewedxfgdf also replied Yes.
> Sure it could be terminated early and another request made for seeking, but regardless the video can start before the whole file is downloaded, assuming it's encoded correctly?
Yes.