|
Top-level
 Note: I posted those videos on Twitter as my Mastodon personal instance didn’t let me post them as they were too large (my instance of one is hosted on @mastohost and they have limits – which is understandable; they’re not a multi-billion-dollar company). For longer videos, etc., I use our Vimeo account. 6 comments
 @aral Obviously, the cost of allowing concurrent streaming of large videos is high and would increase the cost for someone running a Mastodon instance. I do think these limits make sense. Not sure if the values are ideal but there should be a small limit to make possible running a Mastodon instance on a low cost set up. @mastohost Don’t disagree. I do wonder, however, if more processing could be done server side so that a < 30 second video captured on a modern mobile phone fits the limits (the issue is that modern phones have stellar resolution so they’d need to be resampled/recompressed).  @aral @mastohost We did historically up the limits when a new generation of iPhones dropped because ideally mobile videos should just work but it’s complicated, the bigger they are, the more resources it takes to process it server-side. @Gargron @aral @mastohost I wonder if it is possible to downsize videos clientside efficiently to save server resources.
@SuperDicq @aral @mastohost Probably not in the browser, though native apps should be able to |
Gregory's Server
@aral The limits are set by Mastodon https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/blob/master/app/models/media_attachment.rb#L153-L157
I believe the reasoning for this is for one instance not allow 1GB video and another 5MB. Besides creating "special" instances it also would not fully federate between an instance where large videos are allowed and an instance with small videos.
This way every Mastodon instance follows the same limits (as long as the admin didn't hardcode a change to those values).