1 / 38

Overlay Multicasting for Quality Video Delivery

This project presentation discusses differentiated quality video delivery in an overlay multicasting environment, covering topics such as video coding, video delivery, layered peer-to-peer streaming, and supporting large-scale live streaming applications.

tonyf
Download Presentation

Overlay Multicasting for Quality Video Delivery

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. Differentiated Quality Video Delivery in Overlay Multicasting Environment Ying Qiao Carleton University Project Presentation at the class: Quality of Service Management for Multimedia Applications Provided by: Professor Bochmann

  2. Outline • Introduction -- Internet multimedia delivery -- Types of Video service -- multimedia multicast • Overlay multicast environment -- Video coding -- Video delivery • Layered Peer-to-Peer Streaming • Supporting Large-Scale Live Streaming Applications with Dynamic Application End-Points • Incentive mechanism for Peer-to-Peer Media Streaming • Conclusion

  3. Introduction (1) • Internet media delivery • Types of Video Service -- No VOD -- Pay-Per-view -- True VOD -- Near VOD (NVOD) -- Quasi-VOD (QVOD) • Basic multicast functionality -- Group membership management -- Data delivery path maintenance -- Replication and forwarding

  4. Introduction (2) • Internet media multicast • IP multicast • Overlay multicast Ref 4

  5. Overlay Multicasting Environment (1) • Resources provided by peer end node -- Network bandwidth -- Storage space -- CPU power • Features -- Overlay Multicast is deployed with the basic uni-cast routing infrastructure -- End hosts only maintain state for the groups they are participating in

  6. Overlay Multicasting Environment (2) • Three architectures -- Dedicated-Infrastructure -- Application-Endpoint -- Waypoint [Ref 4]

  7. Overlay Multicasting Environment (3) • Video Coding -- Replicated streaming -- Layered streaming -- Multiple Description Coding [Ref 1]

  8. Overlay Multicasting Environment (4) • Video Delivery tree -- Single tree -- Multiple tree ZIGZAG [Ref 5] SplitStream [Ref 6]

  9. Overlay Multicasting Environment (5) • Challenge for overlay multicast -- Bandwidth constraints -- Receiver scalability -- Network dynamics -- Receiver heterogeneity [Ref 4]

  10. Layered Peer-to-Peer Streaming (1) • Layered video [Ref 2] -- Video is encoded into one base layer and multiple enhancement layers -- The base layer can be decoded independently -- The enhancement layers can be decoded cumulatively • Network heterogeneity [Ref 3]

  11. Layered Peer-to-Peer Streaming (2) • Large-scale on-demand multimedia distribution -- Asynchrony of user requests -- Heterogeneity of client resource capabilities • Layered Peer-to-Peer Streaming -- Cache-and-relay -- Layer-encoded streaming

  12. Layered Peer-to-Peer Streaming (3) • Layered Peer-to-Peer Streaming -- Cache-and-relay -- Layer-encoded streaming • Goal -- Maximize the number of the received streams from end nodes other than the source -- Subject to (1) number of received streams for one receiver <= inbound bandwidth of the receiver (2) total number of received streaming from one sender <= outbound bandwidth of the sender

  13. Basic Algorithm • Receiver k, inbound bandwidth • a set of the hosts qualified as the supplying peers of and sorted the Hosts with the available layers • Arranging the layers from the beginning of S

  14. Performance Evaluation (1) • Request composition: -- Modem/ISDN peers, 50%, 112kbps -- Cable Modem/DSL peers, 35%, 1Mbps -- Ethernet Peers, 15%, 10Mbps • Quality satisfaction -- The ratio of received quality and expected quality of a peer • Result --The layered approach is able to fully utilize the marginal outbound bandwidth of supplying peer, and more adapted to the bandwidth asymmetric

  15. Performance Evaluation (2) • Longer buffer enables a supplying peer to help more later-coming peers by prolonging the supplying chain • Further increasing buffer size has very little help at prolonging the supplying chain • Request chain (tree) in both cases • Layered approach relieves the server bandwidth request with peer bandwidth

  16. Fairness • Outbound/inbound < 1 • Outbound/inbound >=1 • 40% Ethernet Peers are not fully satisfied • Reason: the limiting inbound of the Modem/ISDN, and Cable Modem/DSL peers can not satisfied the Ethernet Peers

  17. Robustness • Robustness -- 50% of the supplying peers depart early before the playback is finished -- Reconfiguration through buffer -- Failure ratio is the percentage of failed peers among all departure peers

  18. Conclusion for the layered Peer-To-Peer Streaming • Be optimal at maximizing the streaming quality of heterogeneous peers • Be scalable at saving server bandwidth • Be efficient at utilizing bandwidth resource of supplying peers • Evaluation -- Whether establishing fairness among peers, in terms of streaming quality satisfaction and bandwidth contribution -- Whether being robust against unexpected peer departures/failures

  19. Supporting Large-Scale Live Streaming Applications • Key requirements -- Resource constraints -- Stability -- Efficient overlay structure • Live Streaming Workload -- Large scale: the peak group size is 1,000 to 80,000 hosts -- A large number of short participations -- Heavy tail with some very long participations

  20. Bandwidth Resource Constraints • Single Tree Protocols -- Resource Index: -- Trace study shows sufficient bandwidth resource • Multiple Tree Protocol -- Increase the overall resilience -- Tightly coupled with specialized video encoding -- Resource Index: SupplyOfBW/DemandOfBW -- Increase the supply of the resources

  21. Stability (1) • Metrics -- Mean interval between ancestor change for each participation -- Number of descendants of a departing participation • Simulation of single tree -- Host join: asks the source to get m current group members, picks one host as parent -- Host leave: all of its descendants pick one host -- Parent Selection Algorithms: Oracle; Longest-First; Minimum depth; Random • Simulation Results -- Oracle is the best -- Minimum depth tree can provide good performance

  22. Stability (2) • Simulation Results -- Oracle is the best -- Minimum depth tree can provide good performance

  23. Stability (3) • Impact of Multiple-Tree Protocols -- Independent trees -- Load balancing -- Preemption • Simulation result -- More frequent ancestor changes -- Improved performance comes at a cost of more frequents disconnects, more protocol overhead, and more complex protocols

  24. Efficient overlay structure (1) • Overlay structure closely reflects the underlying IP network -- Need to discover other nearby hosts as parents -- Partition hosts into clusters -- One member of each cluster is designated as the clustered head -- Hosts in the same cluster maintain knowledge about one another • Clustering Quality Metric -- Average and maximum intra-cluster distance in milliseconds

  25. Efficient overlay structure (2) • Sensitivity to Number of Clusters -- More clusters smaller intra-cluster distance -- Maximum intra-cluster distance more sensitive to the change of number of clusters

  26. Efficient overlay structure (3) • Sensitivity to Cluster Size and Resource Maintenance -- Bounding the cluster size doesn’t significantly affect the intra-cluster distances

  27. Conclusion for large-scale live streaming applications with dynamic application end-points • Minimizing depth in single-tree protocols provides good stability performance • Multiple-tree protocols can significantly improve the quality of streams • Simple clustering techniques improve the efficiency of the overlay structure • Opening issue: encourage application end-points to contribute their resources is an important direction

  28. Incentive Mechanism for Peer-to-Peer Media Streaming (1) System quality is: T is the total number of the packets in a streaming session, is 1 if the packet i arrives at the receiver before its scheduled play-out time, and 0 otherwise Cooperation brings quality Simultaneous uploading hurts quality

  29. Incentive Mechanism for Peer-to-Peer Media Streaming (2) • Random peer selection provides random quality

  30. Score-based incentive mechanism • Peer selection scheme allows a user to select peers with equal or lower rank to serve as suppliers • A user wishes to receive better-than-best-effort streaming, it must earn a positive score by contributing to the system • The stream quality for a receiver can be expressed as a function of contribution, score, or rank

  31. Functions Scoring function: could be: Contribution cost: Rank Computation: Quality function:

  32. Experiment system

  33. Performance evaluation • Expected rate: the total bytes coming from all senders • The gain increases for the incentive when the K increases • When k>20, the difference of the rates decreases because the bottleneck is shifted from the hosts to the network • Packets the miss their play-out deadlines are considered as lost

  34. Quality of Streaming

  35. Conclusion for incentive mechanism for Peer-to-Peer Media Streaming • Motivation -- The stream quality is poor if the level of cooperation is low -- Cooperation from a few altruistic users cannot provide high quality streaming to its users in a large system • Conclusion -- A rank-based incentive mechanism achieves cooperation through service differentiation -- The contribution of a user is converted into a score, then the score is mapped into a rank, and the rank provides flexibility in peer selection that determines the quality of a streaming session -- Cooperative users earn higher rank by contributing their resources to others, and eventually receive high quality streaming

  36. Conclusion • Application layer multicasting • Consuming the other end node’s resource while sharing own resource out • The differentiated quality is realized with replicated streaming, layered streaming, and MDC • Replicated streaming is used at the single tree delivery • In the single tree, the minimize depth algorithm shows good performance • Layered Streaming and MDC with multiple tree delivery increases resource, and improve the stability as well • Cluster can improve the efficiency of the overlay structure • Fairness is still an open issue • Incentive mechanism is a solution to encouraging resource sharing

  37. Reference [1] Layered Peer-to-Peer Streaming [2] A Comparison of Layering and Stream Replication Video Multicast Schemes [3] Receiver-Driver layered Multicast [4] Internet Multicast Video Delivery [5] ZIGZAG: An Efficient Peer-to-Peer Scheme for Media Streaming [6] SplitStream: High-bandwidth content distribution in cooperative environment [7] The Feasibility of Supporting Large-Scale Live Streaming Applications with Dynamic Application End-Points [8] Incentive Mechanism for Peer-to-Peer Media Streaming

  38. Appendix: Receiver-Driven Layered Multicast • Rate-adaptation protocol • Each receiver runs the control loop: -- On congestion, drop a layer -- On spare capacity, add a layer • Join-experiment -- adding layers at “well-chosen” times -- causing congestion, then the receiver drops the adding layers -- successful, the receiver start adding another join-experiment • Exponential Join timer for RLM adaptation at the join experiment • “Sharing learning” in multiple receivers for scaling of the receiver

More Related