1 / 33

Peer-To-Peer Multimedia Streaming Using BitTorrent

This paper discusses the problem of resource-intensive video transfer and proposes a solution using the BitTorrent protocol for efficient multimedia streaming. The paper explores the advantages of using a peer-to-peer architecture and presents a mesh-based unstructured overlay solution using BitTorrent. Evaluation methodology, limitations of BitTorrent, and proposed chunk selection and neighbor selection policies are discussed. The paper concludes with future work suggestions.

feldmann
Download Presentation

Peer-To-Peer Multimedia Streaming Using BitTorrent

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. Peer-To-Peer Multimedia Streaming Using BitTorrent Purvi Shah, Jehan-François Pâris University of HoustonHouston, TX

  2. Problem Definition One Server Transferring videos is a resource intensive task! ManyCustomers • Objectives • Customer satisfaction:Minimize customer waiting time • Cost effectiveness:Reduce operational costs (mostly hardware costs)

  3. Transferring Videos • Video download: • Just like any other file • Simplest case: file downloaded using conventional protocol • Playback does not overlap with the transfer • Video streaming from a server: • Playback of video starts while video is downloaded • No need to wait until download is completed • New challenge: ensuring on-time delivery of data • Otherwise the client cannot keep playing the video

  4. Why use P2P Architecture? • Infrastructure-based approach(e.g. Akamai) • Most commonly used • Client-server architecture • Expensive: Huge server farms • Best effort delivery • Client upload capacity completely unutilized • Not suitable for flash crowds

  5. Why use P2P Architecture? • IP Multicast • Highly efficient bandwidth usage • Several drawbacks so far • Infrastructure level changes make most administrators reluctant to provide it • Security flaws • No effective & widely accepted transport protocol on IP multicast layer

  6. P2P Architecture • Leverage power of P2P networks • Multiple solutions are possible • Tree based structured overlay networks • Leaf clients’ bandwidth unutilized • Less reliable • Complex overlay construction • Content bottlenecks • Fairness issues

  7. Our Solution • Mesh based unstructured overlay • Based on widely-used BitTorrent content distribution protocol • A P2P protocol started ~ 2002 • Linux distributors such as Lindows offer software updates via BT • Blizzard uses BT to distribute game patches • Start to distribute films through BT this year

  8. BitTorrent (I)

  9. BitTorrent (II) • Has a central tracker • Keeps information on peers • Responds to requests for that information • Service subscription • Built-in incentives: Rechoking • Give preference to cooperative peers: Tit-for-tat exchange of content chunks • Random search: Optimistic un-choke • When all chunks are downloaded, peers can reconstruct the whole file • Not tailored to streaming applications

  10. Evaluation Methodology • Simulation-based • Answers depend on many parameters • Hard to control in measurements or to model • Java based discrete-event simulator • Models queuing delay and transmission delay • Remains faithful to BT specifications

  11. BT Limitations • BT does not account for thereal-time needs of streaming applications • Chunk selection • Peers do not download chunks in sequence • Neighbor selection • Incentive mechanism makes too many peers to wait for too long before joining the swarm

  12. Chunk Selection Policy • Replace BT rarest first policy by a sliding window policy • Forward moving window is equal to viewing delay chunk not yet received Download window missed chunk received chunk playback start playback delay

  13. Two Options • Sequential policy • Peers download first the chunks at the beginning of the window • Limit the opportunity to exchange chunks between the peers • Rarest-first policy • Peers download first the chunks within the window that are least replicated among its neighbors • Feasibility of swarming by diversifying available chunks among peers

  14. Best Worst

  15. Discussion • Switching to a sliding window policy greatly increases quality of service • Must use a rarest first inside window policy • Change does not suffice to achieve a satisfactory quality of service

  16. Neighbor Selection Policy • BT tit-for-tat policy • Peers select other peers according to their observed behaviors • Significant number of peers suffer from slow start • Randomized tit-for-tat policy • At the beginning of every playback each peer selects neighbors at random • Rapid diffusion of new chunks among peers • Gives more free tries to a larger number of peers in the swarm to download chunks

  17. Discussion • Should combine our neighbor selection policy with our sliding window chunk selection policy • Can then achieve an excellent QoS with playback delays as short as 30 s as long as video consumption rate does not exceed 60 % of network link bandwidth.

  18. Comparison withClient-Server Solutions

  19. Chunk size selection • Small chunks • Result in faster chunk downloads • Occasion more processing overhead • Larger chunks • Cause slow starts for every sliding window • Our simulations indicate that 256KB is a good compromise

  20. Premature Departures • Peer departures before the end of the session • Can be voluntary or resulting from network failures • When a peer leaves the swarm, it tears down connections to its neighbors • Each of its neighbors to lose one of their active connections

  21. Can tolerate the loss ofat least 60 % of the peers

  22. Future Work • Current work • On-demand streaming • Robustness • Detect malicious and selfish peers • Incorporate a trust management system into the protocol • Performance evaluation • Conduct a comparison study

  23. Thank You – Questions? Contact: purvi@cs.uh.edu paris@cs.uh.edu

  24. Extra slides

  25. nVoD • Dynamics of client participations, i.e. churn • Clients do no synchronize their viewing times • Serve many peers even if they arrive according to different patterns

  26. Admission control policy (I) • Determine if a new peer request can be accepted without violating the QoS requirements of the existing customers • Based on server oriented staggered broadcast scheme • Combine P2P streaming and staggered broadcasting ensures high QoS • Beneficial for popular videos

  27. Admission control policy (II) • Use tracker to batch clients arriving close in time form a session • Closeness is determined by threshold θ • Service latency, though server oriented, is independent of number of clients • Can handle flash crowds • Dedicate η channels for each video making worst service latency, w D/η

  28. Results • We use the M/D/η queuing model to estimate the effect on the playback delay experienced by the peers

More Related