An adaptive video multicast scheme for varying workloads
Download
1 / 29

An adaptive video multicast scheme for varying workloads - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 101 Views
  • Uploaded on

An adaptive video multicast scheme for varying workloads. Kien A.Hua, JungHwan Oh, Khanh Vu Multimedia Systems, Springer-Verlag 2002. Outline. Introduction Related Work Proposed Approach Performance Model Performance Conclusion. Introduction.

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 'An adaptive video multicast scheme for varying workloads' - cybill


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
An adaptive video multicast scheme for varying workloads

An adaptive video multicast scheme for varying workloads

Kien A.Hua, JungHwan Oh, Khanh Vu

Multimedia Systems, Springer-Verlag 2002


Outline
Outline

  • Introduction

  • Related Work

  • Proposed Approach

  • Performance Model

  • Performance

  • Conclusion


Introduction
Introduction

  • Maximize the efficiency of server resource with

    • Periodic broadcast

    • Scheduled Multicast (batching)

    • Hybrid Design

  • Will show that existing scheduled multicast techniques are not suited for hybrid designs


Related work skyscraper broadcasting scheme
Related WorkSkyscraper Broadcasting Scheme

  • Fragmentation recursive function

    • Series [1,2,2,5,5,12,12,25,25,52,52,…]


Related work skyscraper broadcasting scheme1
Related WorkSkyscraper Broadcasting Scheme

22-mins video

5 min buffer

Apply aforementioned series function => segment size = 10.4 !!

1.5 Mbits/sec

0.5 min latency


Related work scheduled multicast
Related Work Scheduled Multicast

  • Differ primarily in the criterion used to select which batch will receive service

    • First come, first served (FCFS)

    • Maximum queue length first (MQL)

    • Maximum factored queue length first (MFQ)


Related work scheduled multicast1
Related Work Scheduled Multicast

  • FCFS

  • MQL

Video 1

time

Video 2

time

Fair , maybe bad throughput

Video 1

time

time

Video 2

Better throughput, maybe not fair


Related work maximum factored queue length first mfq
Related WorkMaximum factored queue length first (MFQ)

  • Applying a discriminatory weighting factor to the length of the queue

  • : video i length, : the request frequency of video i

  • Schedule video with the largest value of


Related work maximum factored queue length first mfq1
Related WorkMaximum factored queue length first (MFQ)

  • d

  • d

Still not fair, because not average waiting time !!


Proposed approach
Proposed Approach

  • Adaptive Hybrid Approach (AHA)

    • With a novel scheduled multicast --

      “Largest aggregated waiting time first scheme” (LAW)

    • And SB (skyscraper broadcast)


An adaptive video multicast scheme for varying workloads

: the total number of pending requests for video i

: the arrival time of the jth request for video i

c : the current time

LAW

  • Compare with MQL, it take account of the distribution of the request

    • With considering “aggregated waiting time”


An adaptive video multicast scheme for varying workloads
LAW

Compute the sum of video i service latency

S1=128*5-(107+111+115+121+126)=60

S1=128*5-(107+111+115+121+126)=60

S2=128*4-(112+119+122+127)=32


Adaptive hybrid approach
Adaptive hybrid approach

  • With following procedures to decide which videos to broadcast



Performance model
Performance model

  • Compare AHA with MFQ-SB-n

  • Performance metrics

    • Defection rate

    • Unfairness

    • Average service latency

    • Throughput

  • 100 videos, each 120 mins,

    avg. playback rate 1.5 Mbits/sec.



Performance law vs mfq
Performance - LAW vs. MFQ

LAW perform slightly

better than MFQ

in service latency,

throughput, defection rate

Arrival rate : 8 req/min

Skew factor : 0.3



Performance1
Performance

  • Compare MFQ-SB-n with altering one of

    • Server Capacity (channels)

    • Request Arrival Rate

    • Skew Factor






Conclusion
Conclusion

  • Prove that existing scheduled multicast schemes are not suited for hybrid design

  • Proposed a new technique called Largest Aggregated Waiting time first (LAW)

  • AHA is capable of coping with a changing workload


Periodic broadcast 1996
Periodic Broadcast (1996)

  • PB v.s. batch:

    • Short initial delay

    • Large client-side buffer

video

Client requests

time


Batching 1993
Batching (1993)

  • Batch window:

    • The time interval to initiate a batch stream.

0

t1

t2

t3

time

Client requests