1 / 28

Delayed Chaining : A Practical P2P Solution for Video-on-Demand

Authors:. Delayed Chaining : A Practical P2P Solution for Video-on-Demand. Paris, J.-F. ; Amer , A. Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN), 2012 21st International Conference on Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/ICCCN.2012.6289303 Publication Year: 2012 , Page(s): 1 - 5 .

thetis
Download Presentation

Delayed Chaining : A Practical P2P Solution for 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. Authors: Delayed Chaining:A Practical P2P Solution for Video-on-Demand Paris, J.-F. ; Amer, A.Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN), 2012 21st International Conference on Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/ICCCN.2012.6289303 Publication Year: 2012 , Page(s): 1 - 5 2013.06.07 Speaker :童耀民 MA1G0222

  2. Outline • INTRODUCTION • PREVIOUS WORK • DELAYED CHAINING • PERFORMANCE EVALUATION • IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES • CONCLUSION

  3. INTRODUCTION • Video on Demand (VoD) constituted 27 percent of all internet traffic in 2009 [13]. • This traffic is presently being supported by a very expensive infrastructure comprising huge server farms, high-bandwidth Internet connections and extensive content delivery networks.

  4. INTRODUCTION • Peer-to peer (P2P) technology avoids this predicament by allowing clients to share the burden of distributing video data. • As a result, P2P solutions can potentially eliminate the need for large power-hungry server farms.

  5. INTRODUCTION • In addition, most home computers have very limited upload bandwidths, which do not allow them to forward high-quality video in real time. • We recognize that many computer users have access to gigabytes of free or almost free storage space on one or more cloud servers.

  6. INTRODUCTION • To reduce the impact of these transmissions on the cloud server workload, we do not let cloud copies persist for more than 24 to 48 hours and only allow each cloud copy to serve a single client request before being deleted. • Our simulations indicate that our delayed chaining scheme can dramatically reduce the videos server workload at all stable request arrival rates.

  7. PREVIOUS WORK • Standard chaining • Advanced chaining • Optimal chaining • Expanded chaining • cooperative video distribution protocol

  8. PREVIOUS WORK • Because chaining does not require clients to have very large data buffers, a new chain has to be restarted whenever the time interval between two successive clients exceeds the capacity β of the buffer of the previous client. • Fig. 1 shows three sample client requests.

  9. DELAYED CHAINING • Our delayed chaining scheme applies to services that distribute previously recorded programs, such as a VoD service distributing movies or older episodes of a television series.

  10. DELAYED CHAINING • To provide a decent quality of service to their users, these cloud servers are likely to have better upload and download bandwidths than most home computers. • In our scheme, each client that plays a streaming video will upload a copy of that video to one of these cloud servers.

  11. DELAYED CHAINING

  12. DELAYED CHAINING • Let D denote the duration of the video, bv the video consumption bandwidth and the client upload bandwidth. • We assume that bu < bvbecause otherwise each client could forward the video directly to the next client without any intermediary. • Thus K = bv/buis greater than one.

  13. DELAYED CHAINING • To fully upload the video to the cloud will require KD time units. • This delay can be reduced by observing that another client can start streaming the video as soon as a fraction (K – 1)/K of its contents is stored in the cloud.

  14. DELAYED CHAINING

  15. DELAYED CHAINING • The video upload delay will then be equal to twice the duration of the uploaded video, that is, four hours for a two-hour video. • This will cause problems during rapid increases of the video request arrival rate as there will be no cloud copies available to accommodate the arriving requests.

  16. DELAYED CHAINING • While we focus on the case of clients uploading their videos to their cloud servers, and suffering the slow upload speeds that would typically entail, our scheme is poised to take advantage of mechanisms that would allow client to initiate server-to-server, such as from the VoD server to the cloud server and between two cloud servers.

  17. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION • simplified Markov model • an unlimited number of client requests during its lifetime • more realistic simulation model • video cannot serve more than one client.

  18. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION • We will postulate the existence of a reward mechanism that motivates all users to upload to the cloud a copy of the video they are watching. • We will assume that customer requests arrive continuously and independently of each other with a constant rate λ. • They are therefore modeled with a Poisson process.

  19. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION • The time between arrivals is then governed by the exponential distribution. The probability density of this distribution is p(t) = λ e-λt. • In both models, D will denote the video duration, L the lifetime of the cloud copy of the video and t the time elapsed between two consecutive requests.

  20. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION • A simplified Markov model • Assuming that all clients experience the same upload delay , we see that the probability of not having a cloud copy available is the same as the probability of no request arrivalduring a past time interval whose duration is equal to the cloud copy lifetime . • Hence the probability that a given request willbe serviced by the server is e–λL.

  21. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION • A simplified Markov model • The average server workload per video will thus be w = e−λLDand the average server bandwidth B will be

  22. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

  23. A more realistic simulation model

  24. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES • In this section we address two issues concerning the implementation of our delayed chaining scheme, namely its incentive mechanism and the techniques we may use for improving its behavior during periods of rapid changes of the client arrival rate.

  25. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES • A.Incentive mechanism • This could be done through a virtual currency mechanism. • A currency-based mechanism would let clients “purchase” video data from their predecessors with the currency they collect “selling” their own video data to their successors. • Its sole drawback is that it requires the server to act as a virtual banker.

  26. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES • B. Transient behavior • Introducing a price differential • Using predictive prefetching • Requiring advance purchases

  27. CONCLUSION • We have proposed a delayed chaining video-on-demand distribution protocol that allows clients with limited upload bandwidth to forward the video at a much higher rate to other clients by using the storage space these clients have on one or more remote servers. • To avoid server overuse, our scheme assumes that these cloud copies will serve no more than one client request and will be deleted after 24 to 48 hours.

  28. CONCLUSION • Of the three strategies for handling the launching of a new video that we discussed, requiring advance purchases seems the most natural choice. • More work is still needed to select and implement an incentive scheme and build a prototype that would validate the feasibility of our approach.

More Related