Peer-to-Peer Streaming of Scalable Video in Future Internet Application 2012.04.24 Speaker :...
-
Upload
elvin-dorsey -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
1
Transcript of Peer-to-Peer Streaming of Scalable Video in Future Internet Application 2012.04.24 Speaker :...
Peer-to-Peer Streaming of Scalable Video in Future Internet Application
2012.04.24
Speaker : 吳靖緯 MA0G0101
Communications Magazine, IEEE, On page(s): 128 - 135, March 2011
Authors:Naeem Ramzan, Emanuele Quacchio,Toni Zgaljic, Stefano Asioli, Luca Celetto,Ebroul Izquierdo, Fabrizio Rovati
Outline• Introduction
• Scalable video coding
• Streaming of scalable video over P2P networks
• The MMV platform
• The NextShare platform
• SEAcast platform
• Conclusion
2
Introduction
• In conventional streaming architectures the client-server model and the usage of content distribution networks (CDNs) along with IP multicast were the most desirable approaches for many years.
• However, severely limits the number of simultaneous users in video streaming.
• The reason is the bandwidth bottleneck at the server side, since usually many clients request the content from the server.
3
Introduction
• A CDN overcomes the same bottleneck problem by introducing dedicated servers at geographically different locations, resulting in expensive deployment and maintenance.
• Compared to conventional approaches, a major advantage of peer-to-peer (P2P) streaming protocols is that each peer involved in content delivery contributes its own resources to the streaming session.
• Administration, maintenance, and responsibility for operations are therefore distributed among the users instead of handled by a single entity. 4
Introduction
• The main advantage of P2P systems is bandwidth scalability, network path redundancy, and the ability to self organize.
• Nevertheless, several problems are still open and need to be addressed in order to achieve high quality of service and user experience.
• In particular, the bandwidth capacity of a P2P system is extremely varying, as it relies on heterogeneous peer connection speeds, and directly depends on the number of connected peers.
5
Introduction
• Moreover, displaying devices at the user side may range from small handsets (e.g., mobile phones) to large HD displays (e.g., LCD televisions).
• Therefore, video streams need to be transmitted at a suitable spatio-temporal (ST) resolution supported by the user’s display device.
6
Scalable video coding
• A scalable video sequence can be adapted in three dimensions:• temporal
• spatial
• quality
• The complexity of adaptation is very low, in contrast to the adaptation complexity of non-scalable bitstreams.
7
Scalable video coding
• Figure 1 shows an example of video distribution through links supporting different transmission speeds and display devices.
8
Scalable video coding
• The SVC scheme gives flexibility and adaptability to video transmission over resource-constrained networks in such a way that.
• At each point where video quality/resolution needs to be adjusted, an adaptation is performed.
• Since the adaptation complexity is very low, the video can be efficiently streamed in such an environment.
9
Streaming of scalable video over P2P networks• A generic P2P streaming architecture using SVC is depicted in
Fig. 2.
10
Streaming of scalable video over P2P networks
• A chunk represents the smallest unit of data that will be transmitted over the P2P network.
• Sometimes, the term piece is used to denote a chunk.
• In BitTorrent, file chunks are downloaded in rarest-first fashion.
11
Streaming of scalable video over P2P networks• In video streaming this can result in an interruption of the
video playback since chunks are not received sequentially.
• Therefore, special care needs to be given to those chunks that are close to the playback position.
• An example of an algorithm that takes into account these considerations is Give-to-Get (G2G).
12
Streaming of scalable video over P2P networks• In this algorithm chunks of compressed video are classified
into three priority categories: high, medium, and low.
• This classification depends on the current playback position.
• Chunks close to the playback positions are marked as high-priority chunks.
• Medium- and low-priority chunks are downloaded according to the standard BitTorrent strategy: rarest-first.
13
The MMV platform
A. Piece Picking Strategy
• At the beginning of the streaming session, information about GOPs(groups of pictures) and layers is extracted from the bitstream description file.
• A sliding window is defined, made of several GOPs (typically three to four).
• Chunks are picked only from those inside the window unless all of them have already been downloaded.
14
The MMV platform
• In the latter case, the piece picking policy will be rarest-first.
• Inside the window, chunks have different priorities, following the idea from the original G2G algorithm.
• First, a peer will try to download the base layer (BL), then the first enhancement layer (EL1).
• Figure 3 shows the behavior of the system with a window three GOPs wide.
15
The MMV platform
• An early stage of the prebuffering phase is shown in Fig. 3, first row.
• Second row, the first two layers have been downloaded, and chunks are being picked from EL2 according to the rarest-first policy.
16
The MMV platform
• Third row, the window has shifted. The system will pick chunks from GOP 3 until the quality of received layers is the same.
• Fourth row, all GOPs within the window have the same number of completed layers, and pieces are picked from EL3.
17
The MMV platform
B. Peer Selection Strategy
• Good neighbors are those peers that own the piece with the highest download rates.
• Each time the window shifts, download rates of all the neighbors are evaluated, and the peers are sorted in descending order.
• Pieces are then requested from peers providing download rates above the threshold.
18
The MMV platform
• The performance of this framework is shown in Fig. 4.
19
The NextShare platform
• The procedure implemented in NextShare to download scalable data chunks is an extension of the G2G algorithm.
• Priorities are defined as in G2G and extended to the multiple files, as depicted in Fig. 5.
20
The NextShare platform
• In the high-priority set pieces are downloaded sequentially, while in the low-priority set pieces are downloaded in a rarest-first fashion.
• Each block in the figure represents a time slot.
• In Fig. 5 at time instance t (playback position), the algorithm has to decide which block to download for time point (t + x).
21
The NextShare platform
• The controller implemented in NextShare tries to switch to a higher quality as soon as there is enough saved buffer for the current quality.
• Therefore, a safe buffer of chunks downloaded and not yet delivered to the player is defined; the size of this buffer is a function of the parameter x depicted in Fig. 5.
• The minimum value for x corresponds to five time slots, and can vary depending on network performance.
22
SEAcast platform
• In SEACast data packets are simply forwarded from parent to children nodes.
• As shown in Fig. 6, the publisher is connected to the SEACast root node by means of a different Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) connection for each scalable layer.
• Each SEACast client keeps a buffer of a few seconds for each tree in which it participates.
23
SEAcast platform
• The structure of the P2P tree generated with the SEACast application is depicted in Fig. 6.
24
Conclusions• In P2P networks video is streamed to the user in a fully
distributed fashion.
• Network resources are distributed among users instead of handled by a single entity.
• However, due to the diversity of users’ displaying devices and available bandwidth levels in the Internet, the underlying coding and transmission technology needs to be highly flexible. 25
Conclusions
• In this article we have presented several advanced P2P systems supporting streaming of scalable video and designed to support future Internet applications.
26