When users leave streams paused for extended periods of time, it continues to use the plex transcoder although no transcoding progress is being made. I believe there is a more elegant solution to this issue. After a user-defined period of time, the server should automatically stop the stream, while leaving the client “paused”. When/If the client resumes playback, the server should start the stream and automatically use the “resume from” time to continue playback. Sure, it would take a little longer to resume the stream, but I think this would be preferable to wasting resources, and if it’s user-defined, it could always be disabled.
I realize there are 3rd party scripts that kill paused streams, but I think this suggestion is superior for both the client and the server. I also realize there are similar feature requests, but most are poorly worded or simply want the stream to be killed without resume functionality.
Funny I just noticed this as I setup a new machine to run PMS. Sure enough when I killed the paused streams, the transcoding stopped and CPU spike dropped.
This is crazy, CPU utilization when nothing is happening. Jesus this isn’t so much a 'feature" as much as a need.
We either need an elegant solution or Plex kills the stream after X amount of time.
As more and more users get Roku devices this becomes a bigger issue since they don’t even have a stop button on the remote.
This is crazy, I can’t believe we’re the only ones to mention this/care.
I would’ve assume there would be a lot more noise about this.
CPU running when nothing is playing.
Might be because there are so many feature requests dealing with paused streams. Would be nice if they were all consolidated.
Edited title for clarity.
Perhaps an even larger benefit of this feature would be removing the nonactive stream from “streaming brain”. Currently, when a user has a paused stream, plex still allocates bandwidth for that stream, effectively reducing stream quality for all other users.
I use Tautulli for this in combination with this script which does exactly this.
This issue is currently under investigation.
1 Like
If you read the full OP, you’ll realize I’m aware of that script. However, simply killing the stream isn’t in the best interest of the client. When the client tries to resume playback after the stream is killed, they’ll get a spinning wheel which will eventually time out, and then they have to back out to the info screen, and then hit play, and then hit “resume from xx:xx”. I’m asking for a seamless solution that’s easy on the client as well as the server.
1 Like
That’s great news! Thanks for the update.
Just wondering if there’s been any development or if this feature is still under investigation. Thanks!
I have no new information about this, sorry!
+1 from me.
I currently use Tautulli and the kill stream after x minutes script, but it does seem to cause more issues than it’s worth. So, I like your idea.
Basically, kill the stream on the server side, but leave the client in the paused screen view and when they hit play again, the server sees it as if it was as a selection to resume playing from x time, right?
Yep that’s the idea! That way it frees up bandwidth, stops the server from transcoding and it’s easy on the client too. Hopefully we get some updates soon. Don’t forget to actually “vote” for the feature 
Any new information on this?!
This has been somewhat implemented. The settings now allow stopping streams after an extended pause. Although it doesn’t account for resume capability. Not perfect, but better than nothing.
Settings > Network
1 Like
What do you mean by resume capability?
The playback progress should be stored, so that it can be resumed from this timestamp.
I mean leaving the client “paused” while the stream has really been terminated. When they click play, automatically resume from the stored playback progress point. As it is now the client is greeted with an error message that they have been paused for too long. A small enhancement to be sure, but less annoying from a client perspective.
But educational for the user… 
May I close this thread, in order to release your vote and those of all the other users who voted here?
