1 / 18

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. Motivation P2P VoD system Sub-stream encoding and transmission Simulations Conclusion.

cade-ashley
Download Presentation

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

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 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

  2. Outline • Motivation • P2P VoD system • Sub-stream encoding and transmission • Simulations • Conclusion

  3. Motivation • 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

  4. P2P VoD System • Multiple video architecture • Extension of CDNs: Peers act as video servers • Contribute storage in addition to bandwidth • Help each other with stored videos

  5. Proposed System with Multiple Sub-Streams 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

  6. Benefit of Using Layered Coding/MDC • 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

  7. Multi-Stream Coding Schemes • Compare schemes (a), (b) • Design (c) (a) Layered coding (b) MDC (c) Ideal scheme

  8. Push-Pull Delivery with Layered Coding • Store all layers of a video • Push-pull for layer delivery • Storage consumed for one video: RM

  9. The Ideal Scheme should consume minimum storage • Can we reduce the consumed storage? • The minimum storage: R+R/2+,…,+R/M≈ R ln(M)

  10. RS Coding RS (8,2) coding for Layer 2 Any two received chunks can recover the original two chunks

  11. RS Coding Instead of Replicating RS (8,k) coding, k=1,2,3,4

  12. Redundancy-Free Transmission Based on Push-Pull Architecture • A receiver schedules the chunks that should be delivered (Pull) • A supplier pushes the chunks based on the schedule (Push) R

  13. Features of Proposed Scheme • 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

  14. Simulations • 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

  15. Simulation Results 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

  16. Simulation Results 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

  17. Conclusion • 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

  18. Thanks!

More Related