1 / 28

On a Unified Architecture for Video-on-Demand Services

On a Unified Architecture for Video-on-Demand Services. Jack Y. B. Lee IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MULTIMEDIA, VOL. 4, NO. 1, MARCH 2002. Outline. Introduction UVoD Architecture Performance Modeling Numerical Results Simulation Results Interactive Controls Conclusions. Introduction.

norman
Download Presentation

On a Unified Architecture for Video-on-Demand Services

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. On a Unified Architecture forVideo-on-Demand Services Jack Y. B. Lee IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MULTIMEDIA, VOL. 4, NO. 1, MARCH 2002

  2. Outline • Introduction • UVoD Architecture • Performance Modeling • Numerical Results • Simulation Results • Interactive Controls • Conclusions

  3. Introduction • true-VoD (TVoD) • Service quality is maximized • near-VoD (NVoD) • System cost is minimized • unified VoD (UVoD) • Cost-performance tradeoff

  4. UVoD Architecture (1)

  5. UVoD Architecture (2)

  6. UVoD Architecture (3)

  7. Arrives at time t tm-1< t < (tm –δ) After (t – tm-1) Admit-via-Unicast

  8. Recourse reduction over TVoD • Admit-via-Multicast • As multicast channels is fixed, Admit-via-Multicast users will not result in additional load • Increasing the admission threshold δ thenmore user will be admitted to the multicast channels • Admit-via-Unicast • Since 0 < (t – tm-1) < (T –δ) ≪ L, unicast channels are occupied for a much shorter duration compared to TVoD

  9. Performance Modeling • Latency (average waiting time) • Admit-via-Multicast • Admit-via-Unicast • Admission Threshold • Channel Partitioning

  10. Waiting Times (1) • Admit-via-Multicast • wM (δ)=δ / 2 • Admit-via-Unicast • Arrival process • λu = ( 1 –δ / TR)λ • Service time • Uniform distribution between 0 < s < TR –δ • Approximation by Allen and Cunneen for G/G/m queue

  11. Coefficient of variation Traffic intensity Average service time Server utilization Erlang-C function Waiting Times (2)

  12. Admission Threshold

  13. Channel Partitioning • Find the optimum number of multicast channel such that the resultant latency is minimized • Theorem 1: The optimal proportion of available channels to multicast that minimizes the load at the unicast channels is given by

  14. Numerical Results • Corresponding Latency Formula • NVoD • The latency is constant at 360(900)s for 10(20) movies • TVoD

  15. Admission Threshold verus Queueing Delay

  16. Channel Partition versus Latency

  17. Latency Comparison With TVoD and NVoD

  18. System Capacity and Scalability (1) λ arrival rate in customers/s ulatency constraint in seconds WUVoDlatency fo UVoD WTVoDlatency fo TVoD

  19. 0.2 0.1 System Capacity and Scalability (2)

  20. System Capacity and Scalability (3)

  21. Simulation Results • Environments • Simulation program is developed in C++ using CNCL version 1.10 • Run 31 days • Model Validation • Admission Rescheduling

  22. Model Validation (1)

  23. Model Validation (2)

  24. Admission Rescheduling (1) • When Admission Rescheduling? • For heavy system loads, a user by Admit-via-Unicast may waiting exceed the time to the next multicast of the requestd movie

  25. Admission Rescheduling (2)

  26. Interactive Controls (1) • Using Unicast Channels • Break current multicast video stream then restart at some point • Treat interactive controls as new-video requests starting at the middle of a movie • Could increase waiting for both and interactive requests

  27. Interactive Controls (2) • Channel Hopping • Client has a buffer large enough to cache TR s • User pause at a movie time Tp • Case1: • If resume before buffer overflow, nothing need to be done • Case2: • Once buffer is full, stop buffering • Later resume immediately and determine the nearest multicast channel at movie time Tm ≤Tp

  28. Conclusions • This paper propose and analyzes an architecture that unifies the existing TVoD and NVoD • Through admission-threshold and channel partitioning can achieve cost-performance tradeoff • Results show large performance gain

More Related