Influence of Online Games Traffic Multiplexing and Router Buffer on Subjective Quality

INFLUENCE OF ONLINE GAMES TRAFFIC MULTIPLEXING AND

ROUTER BUFFER ON SUBJECTIVE QUALITY

GTCTechnologies GroupCommunication

Jose Saldana Julián Fernández-Navajas

José Ruiz-Mas Eduardo Viruete Navarro

Luis Casadesus University of Zaragoza, Spain

Index - I. Introduction

- II. Related Works

- III. Test Methodology

- IV. Tests and Results

- V. Conclusions

- II. Related Works

- V. Conclusions

CCNC 2012. DENVECT Workshop. Las Vegas Jan 14, 2012

Introduction - Online games are getting very

popular in the last years

- First Person Shooters are the ones with the tightest real-time requirements

Introduction FPS use a client-server architecture

Uplink bandwidth limit

Server processing capacity limit

Downlink bandwidth limit

“Shooting around the corner”

Jack Wang

Introduction

Wang: Dead

Introduction

Jack Wang

Wang: Dead ¡¡¡ #%$& !!!

Introduction

Introduction Main Key Performance Indicators (KPI):

- Delay

- Jitter

- Packet loss

. Game Server

buffer

Internet

Router

Game &

background

traffic

Introduction Access networks: low-end routers, with limitations in:

- Bandwidth

- Packets per second

Different implementations

. Game Server

buffer

Internet

Router

Game &

background

traffic

Introduction Scenarios where many users share a connection: we can multiplex packets from different players, and compress headers

Introduction By multiplexing, we can mitigate two problems:

- Bandwidth

- Packets per second

… at the cost of adding:

- Delay

- Jitter

- II. Related Works

- V. Conclusions

II. Related Works

- Multiplexing real-time flows

- Subjective quality evaluation

- Influence of the router buffer

II. Related Works

Multiplexing real-time A multiplexer is introduced, and it also compresses headers

IP network

MUX DEMUX.

IP TCM IP

Game Server

Players

delaymux delayrouter delaynetwork

router

Multiplexing real-time First done for VoIP (RFC4170, “TCRTP”):

Adapted for non-RTP flows:

PPP Mux

Reduced Header

Payload

UDP...Reduced Header

Payload

PPP Mux

payload

RTP...

payload

Multiplexing real-time A period is defined, and all the packets arrived are compressed and multiplexed

Native

traffic

Multiplexed

traffic

PE PE PE

Multiplexing real-time Efficiency improvement

One IPv4/TCP packet 1500 bytes

Four IPv4/UDP client-to-server packets of Counter Strike

One IPv4/TCM packet multiplexing four client-to-server Counter Strike packets

η=1460/1500=97%

η=61/89=68%

η=244/293=83%

One IPv4/UDP server-to-client packet of Counter Strike with 9 players

η=160/188=85%

saving

One IPv4/UDP/RTP packet of VoIP with two samples of 10 bytes

η=20/60=33%

Multiplexing real-time Significant savings (Counter Strike)

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

period (ms)

Bandwidth Saving

20 players

15 players

10 players

5 players

Multiplexing real-time Significant savings (Counter Strike)

native 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

period (ms)

Packets per second

20 players

15 players

10 players

5 players

II. Related Works

Multiplexing real-time - E-Model: VoIP delay and packet loss

- FPS games: different studies consider delay limits, and also packet loss limits

- G-Model: MOS formula for Quake IV, adapted from E-Model: delay and jitter

II. Related Works

Multiplexing real-time - Buffer size

- Bandwidth-delay product

- Stanford model

- Tiny buffer

- Buffer implementation

- Byte sized

- Packet sized

- Buffer limitations

- Maximum pps amount

- II. Related Works

- V. Conclusions

Test methodology - Simulation scenario:

- Traces of gaming traffic

- Background traffic

- RTT delay: sum of the delays

IP network

MUX DEMUX.

IP TCM IP

Game Server

Players

router

Test methodology Jitter: Multiplexing increases it

Native

traffic

Multiplexed

traffic

PE PE PE

12/PEstdevmux

Different added delays

Test methodology

PE ↑

Mux jitter↑

Buffer jitter↓

IP network

MUX DEMUX.

IP TCM IP

Game Server

Players

router

Test methodology Jitter has to be added in a proper way (Network jitter is considered independent)

rmroutermuxroutermux stdevstdevstdev cov22

IP network

MUX DEMUX.

IP TCM IP

Game Server

Players

router

22networkroutermuxtotal stdevstdevstdev

- II. Related Works

- V. Conclusions

Tests and Results Buffer: Drop-tail, 2 Mbps

byte-sized packet-sized

small 10 kB 16 packets

big 100 kB 166 packets

Buffers are equivalent, considering average packet size = 600 bytes

Tests and Results Game: Quake IV, 20 players

64 pps

79.5 bytes Native: 40.7 kbps x 20 players = 814 kbps

Multiplexed PE=5ms: 631 kbps 395 bytes

Multiplexed PE=15ms: 605 kbps 1,118 bytes

Tests and Results: delay

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

background traffic (kbps)

RTT, Quake IV, 10kB, 100kB

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

RTT, Quake IV, 16pack, 166 pack

native 16pack

PE=5ms 16pack

PE=15ms 16pack

native 166pack

PE=5ms 166pack

PE=15ms 166pack

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

native 16pack

PE=5ms 16pack

PE=15ms 16pack

native 166pack

PE=5ms 166pack

PE=15ms 166pack

Bandwidth limit native ≈ 1200 kbps

Bandwidth limit mux ≈1400 kbps

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

native 16pack

PE=5ms 16pack

PE=15ms 16pack

native 166pack

PE=5ms 166pack

PE=15ms 166pack

Buffer delay is constant Buffer delay varies as packet size increases

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

native 16pack

PE=5ms 16pack

PE=15ms 16pack

native 166pack

PE=5ms 166pack

PE=15ms 166pack

Small buffers introduce small delays

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

jitter, Quake IV, 10kB, 100kB

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

Tests and Results: jitter

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000m

sbackground traffic (kbps)

jitter, Quake IV, 16pack, 166 pack

native 16pack

PE=5ms 16pack

PE=15ms 16pack

native 166pack

PE=5ms 166pack

PE=15ms 166pack

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

Bandwidth limit native ≈ 1200 kbps

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000m

native 16pack

PE=5ms 16pack

PE=15ms 16pack

native 166pack

PE=5ms 166pack

PE=15ms 166pack

Bandwidth limit mux ≈1400 kbps

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000m

native 16pack

PE=5ms 16pack

PE=15ms 16pack

native 166pack

PE=5ms 166pack

PE=15ms 166pack

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

Average size of sent packets is bigger for packet-sized buffer, so jitter decreases

Big packets have a bigger dropping probability

All packets have the same dropping probability

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000%

packet loss, Quake IV, 16pack, 166 pack

native 16pack

PE=5ms 16pack

PE=15ms 16pack

native 166pack

PE=5ms 166pack

PE=15ms 166pack

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

packet loss, Quake IV, 10kB, 100kB

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

Tests and Results: loss

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000%

native 16pack

PE=5ms 16pack

PE=15ms 16pack

native 166pack

PE=5ms 166pack

PE=15ms 166pack

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

Small buffer starts loosing packets before

reaching the limit

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000%

native 16pack

PE=5ms 16pack

PE=15ms 16pack

native 166pack

PE=5ms 166pack

PE=15ms 166pack

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

PE=15 obtains the worst results, because of

packet size (1,118 bytes)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000%

native 16pack

PE=5ms 16pack

PE=15ms 16pack

native 166pack

PE=5ms 166pack

PE=15ms 166pack

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

Worse results for packet-sized, because all the packets have the

same discarding probability

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000%

native 16pack

PE=5ms 16pack

PE=15ms 16pack

native 166pack

PE=5ms 166pack

PE=15ms 166pack

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

For packet-sized buffer, packet loss is significantly reduced when

multiplexing

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000M

MOS, Quake IV, 16pack, 166 pack

native 16pack

PE=5ms 16pack

PE=15ms 16pack

native 166pack

PE=5ms 166pack

PE=15ms 166pack

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

MOS, Quake IV, 10kB, 100kB

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

Tests and Results: MOS

MOS is based on delay and jitter

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000M

native 16pack

PE=5ms 16pack

PE=15ms 16pack

native 166pack

PE=5ms 166pack

PE=15ms 166pack

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

Small buffers: graphs go down, and grow a little

when jitter peak goes down

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000M

native 16pack

PE=5ms 16pack

PE=15ms 16pack

native 166pack

PE=5ms 166pack

PE=15ms 166pack

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

Multiplexing allows more background traffic

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000M

native 16pack

PE=5ms 16pack

PE=15ms 16pack

native 166pack

PE=5ms 166pack

PE=15ms 166pack

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

Multiplexing results are worse than native

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Sbackground traffic (kbps)

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

byte-sized byte-sized pps limit

2,000 pps (maximum 1,652 offered)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Sbackground traffic (kbps)

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

native 10kB

PE=5ms 10kB

PE=15ms 10kB

native 100kB

PE=5ms 100kB

PE=15ms 100kB

byte-sized byte-sized pps limit

This limitation has a very bad effect on MOS.

Multiplexing alleviates it

- II. Related Works

- V. Conclusions

Conclusions - The mutual influence of the

buffer router and multiplexing has been studied

- Small buffers are more adequate to reduce delay and jitter

- Packet-sized buffers increase packet loss, and multiplexing alleviates this

Conclusions - Multiplexing always saves

bandwidth

- In packet-sized buffers, multiplexing does not improve experienced quality

- Multiplexing is very interesting when a limit in pps is present

THANK YOU

GTCTechnologies GroupCommunication jsaldana@unizar.es

Extra Slides

Influence of Online Games Traffic Multiplexing and Router Buffer on Subjective Quality

Education

Transcript of Influence of Online Games Traffic Multiplexing and Router Buffer on Subjective Quality

1/28 Chapter 8 Multiplexing. 2/28 Multiplexing To make efficient use of high-speed telecommunications lines, some form of multiplexing is used Multiplexing.

Statistical Multiplexing .

Multilevel multiplexing - Kennesaw State Universityksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~vclincy/3510Chapter6Part2.pdf · Multilevel Multiplexing Multilevel multiplexing is a technique used when the

Io Multiplexing

Ch. 8 Multiplexing. 8.1 Frequency-Division Multiplexing 8.2 Synchronous Time-Division Multiplexing 8.3 Statistical Time-Division Multiplexing 8.4 Asymmetric.

Can social capital buffer against feelings of marginalisation and its impact on subjective wellbeing? Empirical evidence from the 2003 Quality of Life.

Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy. PDH MULTIPLEXING PLESIOCHRONOUS HIGHER ORDER DIGITAL MULTIPLEXING.

Multiplexing ( Muxing )

Evaluation of Multiplexing and Buffer Policies Influence on VoIP Conversation Quality

Lecture 14: Multiplexing (1) - University of Otago · Lecture 14: Multiplexing (1) ... y Frequency Division Multiplexing (FDM) y Time Division Multiplexing ... Time Division Multiplexing

Wavelenght multiplexing

Multiplexing References Frequency-division multiplexing ...eie.polyu.edu.hk/~em/dtss05pdf/Multiplexing.pdf · Multiplexing References – Frequency-division multiplexing and Time-division

Multiplexing Techniques

1 multiplexing

43534533 Subjective Inter Subjective Objective

Subcarrier Multiplexing

Sdh Multiplexing

Multiplexing. SONET/SDH Frequency Division Multiplexing; Wavelength Division Multiplexing; Time Division Multiplexing SONET/SDH.

Multiplexing References Frequency-division multiplexing ...em/dtss04pdf/Multiplexing.pdf · I.1 Multiplexing References – Frequency-division multiplexing and Time-division multiplexing

EE 4272Spring, 2003 Chapter 8 Multiplexing Frequency-Division Multiplexing Synchronous Time-Division Multiplexing Statistical Time-Division Multiplexing.