1 / 16

Delay-Aware Push/Pull Protocols for Live Video Streaming in P2P Systems

http://napa-wine.eu. Delay-Aware Push/Pull Protocols for Live Video Streaming in P2P Systems. Alessandro Russo, Renato Lo Cigno DISI – University of Trento, Italy locigno @ disi.unitn.it http://disi.unitn.it/locigno. P2P Multimedia Streaming.

abraham-nichols
Télécharger la présentation

Delay-Aware Push/Pull Protocols for Live Video Streaming in P2P Systems

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. http://napa-wine.eu Delay-Aware Push/Pull Protocols for Live Video Streaming in P2P Systems Alessandro Russo, Renato Lo Cigno DISI – University of Trento, Italy locigno @ disi.unitn.it http://disi.unitn.it/locigno

  2. P2P Multimedia Streaming • P2P is cool, but why streaming? And why live, real-time streaming • Think of out-of-country TV broadcasting • easier to get Internet connection than a satellite dish • Think of the cost of starting a new TV channel • traditional TV broadcasting vs. client-server vs. P2P • P2P-TV could become one of the dominant multimedia applications on the Internet • Some systems already deployed: PPLive, TVAnts, CoolStreaming, … with hundreds of channels already available www.disi.unitn.it/locigno ICC 2010 - NGS, Cape Town, June 26 2010

  3. P2P Multimedia Streaming contd. • P2P-TV is resource-hungry • previously unseen traffic volumes to/from the users • 1+ mbit/s sustained download • Even higher upload (if available) • P2P-TV is challenging to design • large peer count with heterogeneous networking resources • This is not VoD, potentially millions of users watching the same live channel • tight delay constraints • This is not file sharing, delay is the design objective www.disi.unitn.it/locigno ICC 2010 - NGS, Cape Town, June 26 2010

  4. Outline of Talk • P2P streaming systems, definitions • Protocols for Chunk Trading • Push & Pull, why both? • Delay Aware Peer Selection • Wrap-Up and Future Work www.disi.unitn.it/locigno ICC 2010 - NGS, Cape Town, June 26 2010

  5. P2P Streaming Systems • As in the previous talk ... yes, we do talk to each other before presentations  • 1 source generates media chunks at Bs Mbit/s • Peers receive and transmit chunks • The system is unstructured and chunks swarms through the overlay topology • No fixed distribution tree • Each peer is connected to a subset of the other peers • Neighborhoods are stable (in this study) • Peers are autonomous and not synchronized: they evolve solely based on the protocol, no other coordination supposed www.disi.unitn.it/locigno ICC 2010 - NGS, Cape Town, June 26 2010

  6. Network Model • We consider an n-regular topology with symmetric connectivity • Good approx. of a random topology • Easy to construct and maintain • Access is the bottleneck and ADSL-like • Both upload and download bandwidth follow a simplified reservation sharing mechanism (on UDP) • Congestion is avoided setting a maximum to parallel transmissions 3-regular topology www.disi.unitn.it/locigno ICC 2010 - NGS, Cape Town, June 26 2010

  7. Chunk Trading • Each peer • Receives chunks from the other peers • Redistributes chunks to neighbour peers • Two main drivers of the Chunk Trading Logic: • The protocol • The scheduling (local choices of Peers and Chunks) • We focus here on the protocol • Scheduling is “plain” (or trivial if you prefer) • Major “fights” discuss benefits of Push or Pull-based protocols (these latter called also data-driven ... with no reason ) • Indeed there is no reason to use one OR the other, they can be mixed in the same application www.disi.unitn.it/locigno ICC 2010 - NGS, Cape Town, June 26 2010

  8. Traded Push & Pull Peers to trade with are chosen at random, or may follow some “logic”: distance, av. bandwidth, delay, ... Push can also be “blind” (many studies assume so), but duplicated chunks waste bandwidth www.disi.unitn.it/locigno ICC 2010 - NGS, Cape Town, June 26 2010

  9. Node Active and Passive Behavior Peers transmit and receive chuncks Peers transmit offers/requests: they are active protocol entities (or clients in Internet terminology) the node starts requests/offers Peers satisfy offers/requests: they are passive protocol entities (or servers in Internet terminology) the node receives requests/offers www.disi.unitn.it/locigno ICC 2010 - NGS, Cape Town, June 26 2010

  10. Selecting Peers and Chunks • Peers are selected in the neighborhood • At random – R • Following a distribution weighted by 1/RTT: Delay Aware – D • Selected peers are “poisoned” to avoid deterministic patterns and starvations (e.g. one peer very close and the others far away) • In Push: chunks are offered selecting the w most recent available • In Pull: chunks are requested selecting the w most needed, i.e., those closer to the playout time (or oldest) • Push and Pull phases are asynchronous and compete for the bandwidth resources • Offers are put forward and requests satisfied only if there are available resources on the local link • Model suitable for applications that enforce some sort of shaping • Signaling and data transmission are sequential www.disi.unitn.it/locigno ICC 2010 - NGS, Cape Town, June 26 2010

  11. The role of Push and Pull: Diffusion delay distribution • RTT = [10,250] ms • = 1,1 Bp = 1.9 ... 3.4 Bs Peer Choice = R www.disi.unitn.it/locigno ICC 2010 - NGS, Cape Town, June 26 2010

  12. D R The impact of R/D, parallel tx. a, and window w RTT = [10,250] ms www.disi.unitn.it/locigno ICC 2010 - NGS, Cape Town, June 26 2010

  13. Delay Aware bandwidth reduction Tail Behavior: 95-th percentile, different RTTs www.disi.unitn.it/locigno ICC 2010 - NGS, Cape Town, June 26 2010

  14. Summary and Future Work – Summary • Analysis and insight in a flexible protocol (Push/Pull) for P2P streaming • Assessment of the impact (very positive) of selecting peers in your neighborhood based on their RTT, one of the few easy-to-measure network characteristics • Study of some tuning parameters of the basic protocol www.disi.unitn.it/locigno ICC 2010 - NGS, Cape Town, June 26 2010

  15. Summary and Future Work – Work ... • Implementation of Push/Pull in GRAPES libraries: done! http://napa-wine.eu • Implementation of P2PTV streamers in NAPA-WINE peers based on Push/Pull protocols, to compare with other offer/select protocols: under wayhttp://napa-wine.eu • Exploration of tradeoffs between building delay-aware topologies with random peer choice, vs. random topologies vs delay-aware peers selection: to be done • Integration of delay-aware techniques with other network-aware strategies: in discussion & first tests • Improvements and open issues for parallel signaling and chunk transfer: under way (both simulation & implementation) www.disi.unitn.it/locigno ICC 2010 - NGS, Cape Town, June 26 2010

  16. THE END Thank you! Questions? Comments? www.disi.unitn.it/locigno ICC 2010 - NGS, Cape Town, June 26 2010

More Related