Which would be better for performance?

I’ve done some small tests so far and determined I can run a media server off of 1GB of Ram and 1CPU; this by no means would run much but with my development it could possibly make sense to work with it like this?

I’ll explain! My network utilizes a broker server that has the job of communicating with all the servers I connect. So for instance I may connect hundreds of chat-servers and this broker will keep track of each one. Users in the same room can be connected to different servers and broker will sort them securely.

Now where the media-server idea comes in, I want to maybe run hundreds of media-servers like this, my mindset to it. Can provide lowest latency possible, ensure if a network did go down an entire room isn’t destroyed. Keep costs cheap, readily deploy as I need or remove if necessary.

If I opted for more power, I fear a crash taking out hundreds of users and that being an attack on the site itself, successful crashes/reboots will be crucial. Any opinions on this

Also I’d like to thank the developers for putting in work on this project. It helps a lot, truthfully.

This kind of architecture increases your overhead a lot (ie. one Linux server instance per media server process). There’s a trade off between failover resilience/how many users are affected when a server fails, and overhead costs. You’ll have to find a good balance between the two. Regardless of where you settle, you have the right idea to have a broker in front of your media servers that directs traffic and spins up/down media servers as needed for your workload.

In order to avoid an entire room going down, your broker should monitor the health of individual media servers and if one becomes unresponsive, the broker should move all of the affected clients to a healthy server where the room would be recreated. The real-time disruption to your users should be minimal - probably less than a few seconds based on my own local testing.