1 / 22

LOW-LATENCY VIDEO STREAMING OVER PEER-TO-PEER NETWORKS

LOW-LATENCY VIDEO STREAMING OVER PEER-TO-PEER NETWORKS. Eric Setton Jeonghun Noh Professor Bernd Girod Information Systems Laboratory Stanford University. Motivation. Challenges of P2P streaming Limited bandwidth Unreliable peers Related work Tree-based p2p :

anaya
Download Presentation

LOW-LATENCY VIDEO STREAMING OVER PEER-TO-PEER NETWORKS

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. LOW-LATENCY VIDEO STREAMING OVER PEER-TO-PEER NETWORKS Eric Setton Jeonghun Noh Professor Bernd Girod Information Systems Laboratory Stanford University

  2. Motivation Challenges of P2P streaming • Limited bandwidth • Unreliable peers Related work • Tree-based p2p : • End System Multicast (single tree) [Chu, Rao, Zhang, ACM SIGMETRICS 2000] • COOPNET (central server, multiple trees) [Padmanabhan et all, NOSSDAV, 2002] • Mesh-based (Gossip-based) p2p : • Coolstreaming [Zhang, Liu, Li and Yum, MMSP & INFOCOM 2005] Our Goal : Low-latency P2P video streaming

  3. Outline • Low-latency P2P protocol • Join / rejoin procedure • Experimental setup • Performance • Prioritized transmission • Content / network-aware prioritization • Simulation Results

  4. Video stream … … Multiple Tree Construction

  5. Video stream … … Join Procedure Initial join • Contact video source • Receives peer list, number of trees Probe peers Connect to multicast trees • Parent selection factor • Available bandwidth • Minimize tree height • Maximize diversity

  6. Disconnect / Rejoin Procedure Parent of yellow tree is down Parent leave is detected Retransmissions requested Yellow tree is recovered 3 trees Yellow tree is down?

  7. Downlink Uplink Percentage 512 Kb/s 256 Kb/s 56% 3 Mb/s 384 Kb/s 21% 1.5 Mb/s 896 Kb/s 9% 20 Mb/s 2 Mb/s 3% 20 Mb/s 5 Mb/s 11% Experimental Setup • Network/protocol simulation in ns-2 • 300 active peers • Random peer arrival/departure average: ON (4.5 min)/OFF (30 sec) • Typical access bandwidth distribution • Over-provisioned backbone • Delay: 5 ms/link + congestion • Video streaming • H.264/AVC encoder @ 250 Kb/s • 15 minute live multicast [Sripanidkulchai et al.,2004]

  8. Join and Rejoin Latencies Simulations over ns-2, 300 peers Number of trees: 3 Retransmissions enabled

  9. Protocol Scalability Simulations over ns-2 Video traffic Control traffic Protocol overhead

  10. Benefit of Diversity Distribution of peer bandwidth Video encoding rate : 250 Kb/s Over-provisioning factor : 15%

  11. Benefit of Diversity

  12. I B P P P B B Network / Content-Aware Prioritization • Scheduler iteratively selects 7 1 6 1 4 1 2 Sender

  13. Network / Content-AwarePrioritization 4dB 5dB 2.5dB 5dB Number of trees: 4 Retransmissions enabled

  14. 36 Parallel Viewsout of 75 peers Network/content awareprioritization 33.71 dB No prioritization 30.17 dB H.264 @ 250 Kb/swith 0.8 second playout deadline

  15. 36 OverlappedViewsout of 75 peers Network/content awareprioritization 33.71 dB No prioritization 30.17 dB H.264 @ 250 Kb/swith 0.8 second playout deadline

  16. Conclusions • Peer-to-peer control protocol • Tested with up to 3000 peers in ns-2 • Light-weight and scalable • Low start-up and tree repair time • Network/content-aware prioritization • Adapts to packet importance and tree topology • Gains up to 5dB with small playout deadline

  17. Probes extra peers regularly Extra Peer Pool for Fast Rejoin One of multiple trees The red tree parent leaves Chooses a new parent Advantage : - Keep Parent Diversity - Less packet drop Disadvantage : - Increased control traffic - Weak to large-scale disconnect

  18. I B B P P … … Receiver-Driven Content-AwareRetransmission Requests Parent 1 Child P Parent 2 fails Video Buffer • Determine missing packets • Iteratively request most important packet • Limit number of unacknowledged retransmissions

  19. Content-ObliviousRetransmissions Without retransmissions % peersconnected to all 4 trees With content-oblivious retransmissions % peersconnected to all 4 trees

  20. Receiver-Driven Content-Aware Retransmissions Without retransmissions % peersconnected to all 4 trees With receiver-driven CoDiO light % peersconnected to all 4 trees

  21. Video and Network Aware Design • Child peers (Receivers) • Receive video stream from parent peers • On requesting retransmissions • Compute expected video quality improvement • Compute expected network congestion • Parent peers (Senders) • Send video stream to child peers • On scheduling packets to transmit • Compute importance of each packet • Compute expected network delay

  22. Benefit of Diversity Video source : 250kbps (Mthr & Dthr) Retransmissions enabled

More Related