Performance analysis of video streaming on different hybrid CDN & P2P infrastructure

1. Performance analysis of video streaming on different hybrid CDN & P2P infrastructure Presenter: Kuei-Yu Hsu Advisor: Dr. Kai-Wei Ke 2013/9/30

2. Outline • Introduction • Proposed Methods • Simulation Model • Simulation Results • Conclusions • References

3. Introduction Client-Server Architecture Content Delivery Network (CDN) Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Network Hybrid CDN & P2P

4. Client-Server Architecture • ANYONEcan access the video/audio content freely from Internet ANYTIMEand ANYWHERE. • The traditional Client-Server architecture can't afford the number of growing users.

5. Content Delivery Network (CDN) • The key point of the CDN: • Replicatethe content from the original content server at its local cache. • Distributethe content to clients.

6. Content Delivery Network (CDN) • CDNBenefits: • Maximizing bandwidth utilization • Reducing the response time for the end-users • Achieving higher throughput through replicating content

7. Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Network • P2P architecture is applicable on the client side of the network. • Clients become activeassociates by transmitting received content to other clients.

8. Hybrid CDN & P2P Server:CDN → Client:P2P →

9. Proposed Method Dynamic Mobile Server (DMS) Proposed DMS

10. Dynamic Mobile Server(DMS) • Mobile Server (MS): A server application at the strategic network location to provide service. • Service includes serving contents, providing computation, routing traffic etc. • Here focus on serving content in a hierarchicalmanner, as opposed to mesh style in the typical P2P approach.

11. Proposed DMS • Workload of the nearest CDN server and network will decrease and hence allowing clients to be served.

12. Simulation Model Scenario 1: CDN-P2P Scenario 2: CDN-DMS Simulation parameters

13. Simulation Model • Network simulator: ns-2 • Two types of scenario on the client-side: • P2P mesh • DMS • 15 clients: • 10clients receive video content • 3clients receive Voice over IP (VoIP) data • 2clients download some files via FTP

14. Simulation Model (cont.) • 4 domains:content domain, CDN domain, ISPdomain and clientdomain. b CDN Domain VoIP server d a CDN server c Content Domain FTP server ISP Domain FTP Client & VoIP Client Client Domain Media Client

15. Scenario 1: CDN-P2P

16. Scenario 2: CDN-DMS

17. Simulation parameters

18. Simulation Results

19. Simulation Results • Performance indicators for video quality measurement: • average packet loss ratio • average frame loss ratio • average PSNR • The raw video and received video of both CDN-P2P and CDN-DMS can be differentiated with the computation of PSNR(Peak Signal to Noise Ratio). ↙ -1 ↖ MSE(MeanSquareError)

20. Simulation Results (cont.)

21. Simulation Results (cont.)

22. Simulation Results (cont.)

23. Simulation Results (cont.)

24. Conclusions

25. Conclusions • This paper has conducted a simulation study to evaluate two content distribution approaches, namely P2P and DMS. • Simulations were measured in PSNR graph for video quality and also average frame loss ratio, average packet loss ratio and average PSNR. • Results showed that CDN-DMS achieved betterperformance as compared to CDN-P2P in PSNR metric.

26. References

27. References • A. Passarella, “A Survey on Content-centric Technologies for the Current Internet: CDN and P2P solutions”, International Journal of Computer Communications, October, 2011. • Hassan, M.M.; ChoongKhongNeng; Lee Cheng Suan, “Performance analysis of video streaming on different hybrid CDN & P2P infrastructure”, Wireless Communications and Applications (ICWCA 2012), IET International Conference, p.1,6, 8-10 Oct. 2012

28. Thanks for listening