video quality assessment and comparative evaluation of peer to peer video streaming systems l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Video Quality Assessment and Comparative Evaluation of Peer-to-Peer Video Streaming Systems PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Video Quality Assessment and Comparative Evaluation of Peer-to-Peer Video Streaming Systems

Loading in 2 Seconds...

  share
play fullscreen
1 / 17
Download Presentation

Video Quality Assessment and Comparative Evaluation of Peer-to-Peer Video Streaming Systems - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Albert_Lan
305 Views
Download Presentation

Video Quality Assessment and Comparative Evaluation of Peer-to-Peer Video Streaming Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Video Quality Assessment and Comparative Evaluation of Peer-to-Peer Video Streaming Systems Sachin Agarwal Jatinder Pal Singh Deutsche Telekom A.G., Laboratories Berlin, Germany Aditya Mavlankar Pierpaolo Baccichet Bernd Girod Stanford University Stanford CA, USA

  2. Outline • Introduction to P2P live video streaming • Prior work on system performance assessment • Test-bed setup • Performance of tested systems

  3. P2P Live Video Streaming • Extension of P2P file-sharing • Low-cost and scalable delivery mechanism • Several deployed commercial implementations today • Increasing content / channels available

  4. Related Work on Performance Assessment • Networking related metrics, e.g. bandwidth usage, packet loss, continuity index, etc. • CoolStreaming [Zhang et al., 2005]: PlanetLab • PPLive [Hei et al., 2006]: packet sniffing and crawling • SopCast [Sentinelli et al., 2007]: “watching”, PlanetLab • . . . • No video PSNR results • No repeatable test conditions • Network conditions • Encoded video characteristics • Peer behavior • No fair head-to-head comparison of different systems

  5. Test-Bed Setup 576 X 9 1024 X 5 2048 X 1 Test center Berlin, Germany Server 1, 2 Berlin, Germany (15) [Emulated HS Broadband] PLR, delay, jitter and bandwidth measured for representative real connections and emulated using NISTNet traffic shaper 52 Mbps 576 X 16 1024 X 5 2048 X 1 Internet Stanford, CA (22) [Emulated HS Broadband] ISP Datacenter Erfurt, Germany 128 X 2 192 X 2 576 X 2 1024 X 2 Berlin, Germany (8) [Real HS Broadband] TU Munich, Germany (3) [Emulated HS Broadband] 3072 X 3

  6. Encoded Video Stream • La Dolce Vita (Fellini, 1960) • 24 fps, 352x240 pixels • H.264/AVC video codec, 400 kbit/sec CBR bitstream, 42 dB PSNR • I B B P B B P B B P . . . (I frame every second) • H.264 bitstream wrapped in Microsoft ASF container, if required by tested system • Last frame error concealment

  7. Peer Churn Model • 30-minute simulation run • During each 6-minute time-slot • Peer on with probability 0.9 • Peer off with probability 0.1 • Peer can switch off for the rest of the run with probability 0.05 • During last 5 minutes, peer off with probability 0.5

  8. Representative Results • Tested systems • System A: Tree-based, push approach • System B: Mesh-based, data-driven or pull approach • Emulation runs • Run 1: with traffic shaping (using NISTNet) • Run 2: without traffic shaping • Same realization of peer On-Off model for all runs

  9. Pre-Roll Delay about 30 sec enough for System A (tree-based) about 60 sec enough for System B (mesh-based)

  10. PSNR Drop (w/ traffic shaping) System A (tree-based) System B (mesh-based) 32

  11. PSNR Drop (w/o traffic shaping) System A (tree-based) System B (mesh-based) 32

  12. Statistics of Frame Freezes • Frames frozen (as percentage of total frames to be displayed) • Average no. of distinct frame-freeze events per client in 30 min.

  13. Statistics of Frame Freezes (cont.) System A (tree-based) employs content-aware prioritization Long frame freezes more likely with System B (mesh-based)

  14. No. of Peers Failing to Decode a Frame System A (tree-based), Run 1 System B (mesh-based), Run 1

  15. Redundancy, Server Load and Parent-Peer Analysis • Redundancy (bytes received in excess of required video stream bytes) • System A (tree-based): 6% in both runs • System B (mesh-based): 35% and 20% in Runs 1 (w/ traffic shaping) and 2 (w/o traffic shaping) respectively • For both Systems, peer receives on average less than 10% of its data directly from the server; slightly more for Run 2 of System B • System A (tree-based): Sustained downloads from lower number of parent peers

  16. Summary • Proposed methodology allows measuring video PSNR, buffering time, frame-freeze statistics, peers failing to decode a frame, etc. beyond network usage, packet loss, etc. • Test conditions chosen by analyzing real-world conditions and experiments are repeatable • Tested three commercial-grade P2P video streaming systems • Room for improvement in current systems: • Long buffering time (10s of seconds) • Display freezes for more than 100 frames • Tested tree-based system outperforms mesh-based system: • Redundancy • Buffering time

  17. Thank you!http://www.stanford.edu/~maditya/publication.htmlRelated:[Agarwal, et al., TRIDENTCOM 2008]