1 / 25

Robust and Efficient Path Diversity in Application-Layer Multicast for Video Streaming

Robust and Efficient Path Diversity in Application-Layer Multicast for Video Streaming. Ruixiong Tian, Qian Zhang , Senior Member, IEEE , Zhe Xiang, Yongqiang Xiong , Member, IEEE , Xing Li, and Wenwu Zhu , Senior Member, IEEE

erno
Download Presentation

Robust and Efficient Path Diversity in Application-Layer Multicast for Video Streaming

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. Robust and Efficient Path Diversityin Application-Layer Multicastfor Video Streaming Ruixiong Tian, Qian Zhang, Senior Member, IEEE, Zhe Xiang, Yongqiang Xiong, Member, IEEE, Xing Li, and Wenwu Zhu, Senior Member, IEEE IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 15, AUGUST 2005

  2. Outline • What is application-layer multicast (ALM) • Consider the quality-of-service (Qos) • Playback continuity • Propagation delay constraint • Heterogeneous • Improve the reliability • Utilize path diversity • Random multicast forest (RMF) • Topology-aware hierarchical arrangement graph (THAG) • Simulation results • conclusion

  3. What is application-layer multicast (ALM) • Main goal: • Provide group communication without network infrastructure support • Difficulties: • Hard to promise the Qos • Hard to predict the best path (reliability)

  4. Quality-of-service (Qos) • Issues: • Playback continuity • But every node may join and leave at any time • Propagation delay constraint • Because the media data is forwarded by a number of interior nodes • Heterogeneous • The hosts and network infrastructure are heterogeneous

  5. Improve the reliability and effectiveness • Path diversity • Use Multiple description coding (MDC) • Main goal: (balance load amongst hosts) • Split streaming media into several sub-streams • Each sub-stream is delivered through a separate multicast tree • Reference: • V. K. Goyal, “Multiple description coding: Compression meets the network,”IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 18, Sep. 2001. • Two schemes to construct diversity path • Random multicast forest (RMF) • Topology-aware hierarchical arrangement graph (THAG)

  6. Random multicast forest (RMF) • In RMF: • A node can join several multicast trees • All multicast trees are not independent • A joining host can: • Find m closest hosts as candidate parents (Use top-down) • Step1: measure the root and all its children • Step2: select the closest one and measure its children, too • Step3: goto Step2, until has no child or measured previously • random to select one from candidate parents • One is its parent • The others keep the system maintenance • When current parent fails

  7. Example: There are two trees denoted : solid lines and dash lines In solid lines If each host can serve two children Set m = 2 (select 2 closest node as candidate parents) When a newcomer (H5) coming The candidate parents are H2 and H4 The similar operation in dash lines Random multicast forest (RMF)

  8. Random multicast forest (RMF) • Consideration • When a node joining • log(N) are required, where N is the multicast group size • Questions • When m is large (m: the size of candidate list) • May select long-distance candidate • Increase of transmission delay

  9. Topology-aware hierarchical arrangement graph (THAG) • In THAG: • In ALM systems is based on structured overlays • Arrangement group (AG) structure is designed • Every multicast tree are independent • Every path is node-disjoint • Any interior node in one multicast tree at most • be leaf node in all the other multicast trees • What is arrangement group (AG)??

  10. What is arrangement group (AG) • AG is a regular interconnection topology • Reference: • K. Day and A. Tripathi, “Characterization of node disjoint path in arrangement graphs,” Computer Science Department, Univ. Minnesota, Minneapolis, Tech. Rep. 1991. • Characteristics: • Tree-like hierarchical structure • Embedded several independent multicast trees • Denoted by An,k, 1≦k≦n-1 • Let be the set of permutations of k, and the element in is denoted as X = x1x2…xk • An,k is defined as a undirected graph G(V, E) A4,2

  11. Topology-aware hierarchical arrangement graph (THAG) • In a full-filled An,2 • there are n(n-1) nodes • at most n-2 independent trees • the degree of each node is 2(n-2) • ai,j(1 ≤ i,j ≤ n, i≠j) is labeled by its coordinates (i,j).

  12. root root Topology-aware hierarchical arrangement graph (THAG) • The algorithm of n-2 multicast trees into an An,2 : Step 1: ak,1(k=3,4,…n) as the root for multicast tree Tk Step 2: Let ak,y (y=2,3,…n, y≠k) and ax,1(x=2,3,…,n, x≠k) join the tree Tk, ak,1 is the parent node Step 3: Let ax,y (x=1,2,…n, x≠k,y=2,3,…n, y≠k) join the tree Tk, ak,y is the parent node Step 4: If k is odd, let node a1,k join the tree Tk, node a1,k-1 is parent node. Let ax,k (x=2,3,…n, x≠k) join the tree Tk, ak,1 is the parent node Step 5: If k is even, let node a2,k join the tree Tk, node a2,k-1 is parent node. Let ax,k (x=1,3,…n, x≠k) join the tree Tk, a2,k is the parent node : full-leaf nodes

  13. Topology-aware hierarchical arrangement graph (THAG) • Characteristics: • All parents are its children’s neighbors • A node reach any other node in at most 4 • AG is resilient • If a node leaves • One neighbor will create the virtual node for the position • The virtual node can be replaced by the actual node later • only (n-2) new connections are required • The overhead is small • Considerations: • Problems: • the size of An,2 is limited • Ex: there are at most 90 nodes in an A10,2 • Solution: • Extend AGs into hierarchical architecture

  14. Extend AG to hierarchical architecture • When A4,2 is fulfilled, it derives child-AGs. • A column node in AG {ai,j | i=1,…,n, i≠j, i ≠(j+1)mod2 +1} can derive one or more child-AGs

  15. Extend AG to hierarchical architecture • Considerations: • How does the THAG protocol design • How to join THAG • How to fast switch when a node cannot receive parent’s data

  16. Must very stable How does the THAG protocol design : actual node : virtual node

  17. How to join THAG • Propose a locating-replacing-sinking algorithm (LRS) • Use a top-down way

  18. How to fast switch when a node cannot receive parent’s data • If s trees are utilized to deliver data in An,2, called deliverytree, where n >s +2 • There are n-2-s trees are not utilized called nondeliverytree • When a node cannot receive data from parent • Asks a parent in nondelivery tree to send data

  19. Simulation results • Demonstrate fault-tolerance and Qos-provision • THAG and RMF with 1000 hosts • Each node will fail with probability P • THAG is constructed on A8,2 • At most has (8-2) = 6 multicast trees

  20. P=0 P=2% (THAG) P=2% (RMF) P=5% (THAG) P=5% (RMF) P=10% (THAG) P=10% (RMF) Simulation results • THAG has better fault-tolerant performance than RMF • In THAG, a failure of one node only affect a tree ( s= 2~6, N = 1000 )

  21. Simulation results • Hosts in THAG have higher probability to receive more flows than in RMF THAG RMF (s=4, N=1000, P=5%)

  22. 90%-tile (RMF) Average (RMF) 90%-tile (THAG) Average (THAG) Simulation results • Evaluation of Qos-Provision • Relative delay penalty (RDP): show the propagation delay on the paths • The data delivery in THAG is much shorter latency than that in RMF (RMF) ( s= 3)

  23. Simulation results • Evaluation of Qos-Provision • Link Stress: The total number of duplicate copies of a packet that a link has to carry • The link stress increases slowly • Small link stress indicate that they have the ability of avoiding the serious link congestion problem Average (RMF) 90%-tile (RMF) (RMF) Average (THAG) 90%-tile (THAG)

  24. Simulation results • Evaluation of Qos-Provision • Delay Variation: the average of delay on the paths in multicast tree • Relative delay variation (RDV) , where Dmax and Dminare maximum and minimum propagation delay

  25. Conclusion • In ALM • Use path diversity to improve the reliability of streaming • Two schemes: RMF and THAG • Summary • In reliability • THAG has been improved up to 20% compared with RMF • In Qos • In RDP, link stress, and delay variation • THAG is also smaller than RMF or almost the same as that in RMF

More Related