1 / 14

MediaPlayer ™ vs. RealPlayer ™ A Comparison of Network Turbulence

MediaPlayer ™ vs. RealPlayer ™ A Comparison of Network Turbulence. Mingzhe Li, Mark Claypool, Robert Kinicki CS Department Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, MA, USA http://perform.wpi.edu/. Big 3: RealPlayer , MediaPlayer , QuickTime [Jup01]. Introduction.

sibley
Download Presentation

MediaPlayer ™ vs. RealPlayer ™ A Comparison of Network Turbulence

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. MediaPlayer™ vs. RealPlayer™A Comparison of Network Turbulence Mingzhe Li, Mark Claypool, Robert Kinicki CS Department Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, MA, USA http://perform.wpi.edu/

  2. Big 3: RealPlayer, MediaPlayer, QuickTime [Jup01] Introduction • Streaming video often does not like TCP • Wants smooth stream, so rate-based • Does not always want retransmissions Chooses UDP • UDP flows may be unresponsive to congestion Handle with Active Queue Management (AQM) • Typical AQMs model UDP flows as CBR (“firehose”) • More realistic models of streaming UDP flows will make AQMs more effective • We investigate size and distribution over time  Turbulence SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop

  3. Methodology • Build automated video players (MediaTracker and RealTracker[WCZ01]) • Use commercial cores • Software Development Kits (SDKs) • Record application stats: frame rate… • Select hosts with both RealNetworks and Microsoft Media video servers • Stream identical content to players on the same host • Analyze results SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop

  4. Clip Selection RealMicrosoft Type Bandwidth (Kbps) (Kbps) 1 Sports High 284 323 3:46 Low 36 50 2 Commercial High 268 307 0:39 Low 84 102 3 Sports High 284 307 0:60 Low 37 38 4 Music T.V. High 181 309 4:05 Low 26 50 5 News High 218 250 1:47 Low 22 39 6 Movie Clip Very High 637 731 2:27 High 271 347 Low 39 102 SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop

  5. Experimental Setup • Player Platform • Microsoft Windows 2000 PC • P4 1.8 GHz, 512M RAM, AGP 32MB video card • mindspeed.wpi.edu (Worcester, MA, USA) • Network • LAN: PCI 10M NIC Win2k professional • Campus uplink: ~50 Mbps (Yipes in 15 Mbps) • Software • Microsoft Media Player version 7.1 • RealNetworks RealOne Player build 6.0.10.505 • Ethereal version 0.8.20 SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop

  6. IP Packet Arrivals • RealPlayer – single packets • Media Player – groups of packets (3 in this example) • 2 at about 1500 bytes (typical MTU) • 1 “left-over” less than MTU SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop

  7. Media Player IP Packet Fragmentation SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop

  8. Normalized UDP Packet Sizes Media Player – More “Constant Packet Size” RealPlayer – Less “Constant Packet Size” SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop

  9. UDP Packet Interarrival Times Media Player – More “Constant Packet Rate” RealPlayer – Less “Constant Packet Rate” SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop

  10. Playout Rate RealPlayer buffers at a higher rate SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop

  11. Frame Rate RealPlayer significantly higher at low bandwidth SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop

  12. Summary • Microsoft Media Player typical CBR • Constant packet sizes and interarrivals • RealNetworks RealPlayer less CBR • Range of packet sizes and interarrivals • Buffers at up to 3 times playout rate • Media Player has significant IP frag. • 3-5 IP frags / UDP for broadband+ bwidth • Results can be used for more realistic streaming simulations and emulations • MediaTracker and RealTracker online: http://perform.wpi.edu/real-tracer/ SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop

  13. Future Work • Build simulated streaming application • In NS • Server side control • Clip encoding, Content type • (We have server set-up, preliminary results) • Bandwidth under congestion • TCP-Friendly? • (We have results for RealPlayer) • More players and protocols • QuickTime (QuickTracker) SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop

  14. MediaPlayer™ vs. RealPlayer™A Comparison of Network Turbulence Mingzhe Li, Mark Claypool, Robert Kinicki CS Department Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, MA, USA http://perform.wpi.edu/

More Related