1 / 46

A Comparison of Layering and Stream Replication Video Multicast Schemes

A Comparison of Layering and Stream Replication Video Multicast Schemes. Taehyun Kim and Mostafa H. Ammar Networking and Telecommunications Group Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia. Research Goal.

talli
Télécharger la présentation

A Comparison of Layering and Stream Replication Video Multicast Schemes

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. A Comparison of Layering and Stream Replication Video Multicast Schemes Taehyun Kim and Mostafa H. Ammar Networking and Telecommunications Group Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia

  2. Research Goal • A systematic comparison of video multicasting schemes designed to deal with heterogeneous receivers • Replicated streams • Cumulative layering • Non-cumulative layering

  3. Stream Replication • Multiple video streams • Same content with different data rates • Receiver subscribes to only one stream • Example • DSG (Cheung, Ammar, and Li, 1996) • SureStream of RealNetworks • Intelligent streaming of Microsoft

  4. Replicated Stream Multicast

  5. Cumulative Layering • 1 base layer + enhancement layers • Base layer • Independently decoded • Enhancement layer • Decoded with lower layers • Improve the video quality • Example • RLM (McCanne, Jacobson, Vetterli, 1996) • LVMR (Li, Paul, and Ammar, 1998) • MPEG-2/4, H.263 scalability modes

  6. Layered Video Multicast

  7. Layering or Replication? • Common wisdom states: “Layering is better than replication” • But it depends on • Layering bandwidth penalty • Specifics of encoding • Protocol complexity • Topological placement of receivers

  8. Bandwidth Penalty • Information theoretic results • R(P, D2)  R(P, D1, D2) • Packetization overhead • Syntactically independent layering • Picture header • GOP information • Macroblock information

  9. Experimental Comparison

  10. Comparison by DP J. Kimura, F. A. Tobagi, J. M. Pulido, P. J. Emstad, "Perceived quality and bandwidth characterization of layered MPEG-2 video encoding", Proc. of the SPIE, Boston, MA, Sept. 1999

  11. Providing a Fair Comparison • Need to insure that each scheme is optimized • Two dimensions • Selection of stream/layer rates • Assignments of streams/layers to receivers

  12. Rate allocation • Cumulative layering • Optimal receiver partitioning algorithm (Yang, Kim, and Lam) • Stream replication • Cumulative rate allocation

  13. Stream assignment • Cumulative layering • Assign as many layers as possible • Stream replication • Greedy algorithm

  14. Comparison Methodology • Model of network • Topology • Available bandwidth • Placement of source and receivers • Determine optimal stream rates and allocation • Evaluate performance

  15. Performance Metrics • Average reception rate • Total bandwidth usage • Average effective reception rate • Efficiency

  16. Network Topology • GT-ITM • Number of server = 1 • Number of receivers = 1,640 • Number of transit domains = 10 • Number of layers = 8 • Amount of penalty = 25%

  17. Data reception rate

  18. Bandwidth usage

  19. Effective reception rate

  20. Efficiency

  21. Effect of overhead

  22. Effect of the number of layers

  23. Clustered Distribution • Topology consideration • Layering favors clustered receivers • Stream replication favors randomly distributed receivers • Simulate when receivers are clustered within one transit domain

  24. Effective reception rate

  25. Protocol Complexity • Layered video multicasting • Multiple join for a receiver • Large multicast group size • Replicated stream video multicasting • One group for a receiver • Small multicast group size

  26. Average group size

  27. Conclusion • Identified the factors affecting relative merits of layering versus replication • Layering penalty • Specifics of the encoding • Topological placement • Protocol complexity • Developed stream assignment and rate allocation algorithm • Investigated the conditions under which each scheme is superior

  28. Optimal Quality Adaptation for MPEG-4 Fine-Grained Scalable Video Taehyun Kim and Mostafa H. Ammar Networking and Telecommunications Group Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia

  29. Related Work (1/2) • S. Nelakuditi, et al, “Providing smoother quality layered video stream,” NOSSDAV 2000 • Goals • Achieving smoother quality for layered CBR video using receiver buffer • Minimizing quality variation (maximizing runs of continuous frames)

  30. Algorithm • Forward scan • Switching between select and discard phase • Entering select phase if buffer is full • Entering discard phase if buffer is empty • Backward scan • Exploiting the residual buffer • Extending each run

  31. Bandwidth Model

  32. Experimental Result

  33. Experimental Result

  34. Related Work (2/2) • D. Saparilla, et al, “Optimal streaming of layered video,” INFOCOM 2000 • Goal • Investigating the bandwidth allocation problem to minimize loss probability • Modeling the source video and the available bandwidth by stochastic process

  35. Main Result • Static policy • Allocating bandwidth in proportion to long run average data rate • Optimal for infinite length, independent layering • Threshold-based policy • If the base layer buffer is below a threshold, allocate bandwidth to the base layer

  36. Research Goal of MPEG4 FGS Quality Adaptation • Maximization of the perceptual video quality by minimizing quality variation • Accommodation of the mismatch between • Rate variability of VBR video • Available bandwidth variability

  37. MPEG4 FGS Hybrid Scalability • Base layer • Enhancement layer • FGS layer: improving video quality • FGST layer: improving temporal resolution

  38. Rate Variability

  39. Quality Adaptation Framework C[k]: transmission resource constraint X[k]: cumulative data size S[k]: cumulative selected data size d: threshold

  40. Optimal Quality Adaptation • Threshold should be equal to the receiver buffer size to achieve • Minimum quality variability • Necessary condition of maximum bandwidth utilization

  41. Online Adaptation • Estimating the threshold point without assuming the available bandwidth information in advance • The available bandwidth is estimated by an MA style linear estimator

  42. Experiment Model

  43. TCP TFRC Bandwidth Variability

  44. Performance over TFRC • Threshold-based streaming (Infocom’00) • Online adaptation

  45. Performance over TCP • Threshold-based streaming • Online adaptation

  46. Conclusion • Accommodated the mismatch between the rate variability and the bandwidth variability • Developed an optimal quality adaptation scheme for MPEG4 FGS video to reduce quality variation • Investigated the perceptual quality of different algorithms and options

More Related