1 / 37

YouTube Traffic Characterization: A View From the Edge

YouTube Traffic Characterization: A View From the Edge. Phillipa Gill¹ , Martin Arlitt²¹, Zongpeng Li¹, Anirban Mahanti³ ¹ Dept. of Computer Science, University of Calgary, Canada ² Enterprise Systems & Software Lab, HP Labs, USA ³ Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, IIT Delhi, India.

LeeJohn
Télécharger la présentation

YouTube Traffic Characterization: A View From the Edge

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. YouTube Traffic Characterization: A View From the Edge Phillipa Gill¹, Martin Arlitt²¹, Zongpeng Li¹, Anirban Mahanti³ ¹Dept. of Computer Science, University of Calgary, Canada ²Enterprise Systems & Software Lab, HP Labs, USA ³Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, IIT Delhi, India

  2. Introduction • The way people use the Web is changing. • Creation and sharing of media: • Fast, easy, cheap! • Volume of data associated with extremely popular online media.

  3. What is Web 2.0? • User generated content • Text: Wordpress, Blogspot • Photos: Flickr, Facebook • Video: YouTube, MySpace • Social Networking • Facebook, MySpace • Tagging • Flickr, YouTube

  4. YouTube: Facts and Figures • Founded in February 2005 • Enabled users to easily share movies by converting them to Flash • Largest video sharing Website on the Internet [Alexa2007] • Sold to Google for $1.65 billion in November 2006

  5. How YouTube Works (1/2) GET: /watch?v=wQVEPFzkhaM OK (text/html) GET: /vi/fNaYQ4kM4FE/2.jpg OK (img/jpeg)

  6. How YouTube Works (2/2) GET: swfobject.js OK (application/x-javascript) GET: /p.swf OK (application/shockwave-flash) GET: /get_video?video_id=wQVEPFzkhaM OK (video/flv)

  7. Our Contributions • Efficient measurement framework • One of the first extensive characterizations of Web 2.0 traffic • File properties • File access patterns • Transfer properties • Implications for network and content providers

  8. Outline • Introduction & Background • Contributions • Methodology • Results • Implications • Conclusions

  9. Our View Points • Edge (University Campus) • 28,000 students • 5,300 faculty & staff • /16 address space • 300Mb/s full-duplex network link • Global • Most popular videos

  10. Campus Data Collection • Goals: • Collect data on all campus YouTube usage • Gather data for an extended period of time • Protect user privacy • Challenges: • YouTube’s popularity • Monitor limitations • Volume of campus Internet usage

  11. Our Methodology • Identify servers providing YouTube content • Use bro to summarize each HTTP transaction in real time • Restart bro daily and compress the daily log • Map visitor identifier to a unique ID

  12. Categories of Transactions • Complete – the entire transaction was parsed successfully • Interrupted – TCP connection was reset • Gap – monitor missed a packet • Failure – transaction could not be parsed

  13. Categories of Transactions (2)

  14. Our Traces

  15. HTTP Response Codes

  16. Global Data Collection • Crawling all videos is infeasible • Focus on top 100 most popular videos • Four time frames: daily, weekly, monthly and all time. • 2 step data collection: • Retrieve pages of most popular videos • Use YouTube API to get details on these videos

  17. Outline • Introduction & Background • Contributions • Methodology • Results • Implications • Conclusions

  18. Results • Campus Usage Patterns • File Properties • File Access Patterns • Transfer Properties

  19. Campus Usage Patterns Reading Break

  20. Results • Campus Usage Patterns • File Properties • File Access Patterns • Transfer Properties

  21. Unique File Sizes • Video data is significantly larger than the other content types

  22. Time Since Modification • Videos and images rarely modified • Text and application data modified more frequently

  23. Video Durations • Spike around 3 minutes likely music videos • Campus videos are relatively short: μ=3.3 min

  24. Summary of File Properties • Video content is much larger than other content types • Image and video content is more static than application and text content • Video durations are relatively short Videos viewed on campus tend to be more than 1 month old

  25. Results • Campus Usage Patterns • File Properties • File Access Patterns • Transfer Properties

  26. Relative Popularity of Videos • Video popularity follows a weak Zipf distribution • Possibly due to edge network point of view β = 0.56

  27. Commonality of Videos • ~10% commonality between consecutive days during the week • ~5% commonality between consecutive days on the weekend

  28. Summary of File Referencing • Zipf distribution is weak when observed from the edge of the network • There is some overlap between videos viewed on consecutive days • Significant amount of content viewed on campus is non-unique

  29. Results • Campus Usage Patterns • File Properties • File Access Patterns • Transfer Properties

  30. Transfer Sizes Flash player (p.swf, player2.swf) Javascripts

  31. Transfer Durations • Video transfers have significantly longer durations than other content types

  32. Summary of Transfer Properties • Javascript and flash objects have an impact on the size of files transferred • Video transfers have significantly larger sizes and durations

  33. Outline • Introduction & Background • Contributions • Methodology • Results • Implications • Conclusions

  34. Implications for Network Providers • Web 2.0 poses challenges to caching • Larger multimedia files • More diversity in content • Meta data may be used to improve caching efficiency

  35. Implications for Content Providers • Multimedia content is large! • 65,000 videos/day x 10MB/video = 19.5 TB/month • Long tail effect -> much of the content will be unpopular • Cheap storage solutions • Longer transfer durations for video files • more CPU cycles required for transfers

  36. Conclusions • Multimedia content has much larger transfer sizes and durations than other content types • From the edge of the network, video popularity follows a weak Zipf distribution • Web 2.0 facilitates diversity in content which poses challenges to caching • New approaches are needed to efficiently handle the resource demands of Web 2.0 sites

  37. Questions? Contact psessini@ucalgary.ca

More Related