Efficient sub stream encoding and transmission for p2p video on demand
Download
1 / 18

Efficient Sub-Stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 163 Views
  • Uploaded on

Efficient Sub-Stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand. Zhengye Liu Yanming Shen Shivendra S. Panwar Keith W. Ross Yao Wang Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, NY, USA. Outline. Motivation P2P VoD system Sub-stream encoding and transmission Simulations Conclusion.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Efficient Sub-Stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand' - cade-ashley


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Efficient sub stream encoding and transmission for p2p video on demand

Efficient Sub-Stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

Zhengye Liu

Yanming Shen

Shivendra S. Panwar

Keith W. Ross

Yao Wang

Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, NY, USA


Outline
Outline on Demand

  • Motivation

  • P2P VoD system

  • Sub-stream encoding and transmission

  • Simulations

  • Conclusion


Motivation
Motivation on Demand

  • Video-on-demand services

    • Youtube, MSN video, google video,…

    • Content distribution networks (CDNs)

  • P2P live streaming systems

    • PPLive, PPStream, UUSee, Coolstreaming,…

    • Support thousands of users simultaneously


P2p vod system
P2P VoD System on Demand

  • Multiple video architecture

    • Extension of CDNs: Peers act as video servers

    • Contribute storage in addition to bandwidth

    • Help each other with stored videos


Proposed system with multiple sub streams
Proposed System with Multiple Sub-Streams on Demand

In this illustration, two simultaneous streaming sessions are requested from nodes 4 and 5. The system initially selects nodes 2 and 3 to serve node 4’s request, and selects nodes 4 and 1 to serve node 5’s request. After Node 2 goes down, the system finds node 6 as a replacement


Benefit of using layered coding mdc
Benefit of Using Layered Coding/MDC on Demand

  • Adaptive to the long-term bandwidth fluctuation due to peer churn

    • Uplink bandwidth fluctuation

    • Received video quality adapts to the available uplink bandwidth

  • Robust to peer failure/disconnection

    • One supplier failure only affects one/several sub-stream(s)

    • Video quality will not be impaired seriously


Multi stream coding schemes
Multi-Stream Coding Schemes on Demand

  • Compare schemes (a), (b)

  • Design (c)

(a) Layered coding

(b) MDC

(c) Ideal scheme


Push pull delivery with layered coding
Push-Pull Delivery with Layered Coding on Demand

  • Store all layers of a video

  • Push-pull for layer delivery

  • Storage consumed for one video: RM


The ideal scheme should consume minimum storage
The Ideal Scheme should consume minimum storage on Demand

  • Can we reduce the consumed storage?

  • The minimum storage: R+R/2+,…,+R/M≈ R ln(M)


Rs coding
RS Coding on Demand

RS (8,2) coding for Layer 2

Any two received chunks can recover the original two chunks


Rs coding instead of replicating
RS Coding Instead of Replicating on Demand

RS (8,k) coding, k=1,2,3,4


Redundancy free transmission based on push pull architecture
Redundancy-Free Transmission Based on on DemandPush-Pull Architecture

  • A receiver schedules the chunks that should be delivered (Pull)

  • A supplier pushes the chunks based on the schedule (Push)

R


Features of proposed scheme
Features of Proposed Scheme on Demand

  • Ideal Scheme

    • Equal importance (like MDC)

    • Redundancy free transmission (like Layered coding)

  • Minimum storage consumed

    • R ln(M) vs. RM

      • M=4, 2.08R vs. 4R, save about 50%

      • M=32, 3.47R vs. 32R, save about 89%

  • Since a peer needs to store fewer substreams: save server bandwidth


Simulations
Simulations on Demand

  • Setting

    • 3000 peers, different uplink bandwidth

    • 30 videos, different popularity (Zipf distribution with parameter 0.27)

  • Simulate two video sequences

    • Foreman: low rate

    • Mobile: high rate

  • Compare SLRS, Layered Coding, MD-FEC, RFMD

  • Performance metrics

    • Discontinuity: number of undecodable GOPs/Total number of GOPs

    • PSNR


Simulation results
Simulation Results on Demand

Discontinuity of different schemes

vs. number of active users under the “Foreman” sequence

PSNR of different schemes

vs. number of active users under the “Foreman” sequence


Simulation results1
Simulation Results on Demand

Discontinuity of different schemes

vs. number of active users under the “Mobile” sequence

PSNR of different schemes

vs. number of active users under the “Mobile” sequence


Conclusion
Conclusion on Demand

  • Propose a redundancy-free transmission scheme based on a push-pull architecture

  • RFMD

    • Advantages

      • All substreams have equal importance: graceful quality degradation

      • Only the source bits are transmitted: no transmission redundancy

      • Coding instead replication: any combination of M or fewer substreams can be used in reconstructing video

    • Additional cost:

      • Feedback from the client to each supplying peer: feasible in typical P2P VoD applications


Thanks
Thanks! on Demand


ad