1 / 35

Peer-to-Peer Systems CNT 5517-5564

Peer-to-Peer Systems CNT 5517-5564. Dr. Sumi Helal & Dr. Choonhwa Lee Computer & Information Science & Engineering Department University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 { helal , chl }@ cise.ufl.edu. The State of the Art of P2P Video Streaming. Slide courtesy:

augusta
Télécharger la présentation

Peer-to-Peer Systems CNT 5517-5564

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. Peer-to-Peer SystemsCNT 5517-5564 Dr. SumiHelal & Dr. Choonhwa Lee Computer & Information Science & Engineering Department University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 {helal, chl}@cise.ufl.edu

  2. The State of the Art of P2P Video Streaming Slide courtesy: Prof. DarshanPurandareat University of Central Florida, USA Dr. Meng ZHANG, Dyyno Inc., USA Jan David Mol, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

  3. Outline • Introduction • Video StreamingApproaches • IP Multicast • Content Distribution Network • Application Layer Multicast • Peer-to-Peer Swarming Protocol • Noteworthy P2P Streaming Systems • BT-Based Protocols • CoolStreaming, GridMedia, PPLive • Mobile P2P Streaming

  4. P2P Is More Than File Download P2P Protocols: • 1999: Napster, End System Multicast (ESM) • 2000: Gnutella, eDonkey • 2001: Kazaa • 2002: eMule, BitTorrent • 2003: Skype • 2004:Coolstreaming, GridMedia, PPLive • 2005~: TVKoo, TVAnts, PPStream, SopCast, … • Next: VoD, IPTV, Gaming

  5. Internet Traffic • Internet video is ~1/4 of consumer Internet traffic – not including P2P • All forms of video ~90% by 2012 • TV, VoD, Internet, and P2P • Mobile data traffic will double every year from now though 2012

  6. Internet Video Streaming • Large-scale video broadcast over Internet • Real-time video streaming • Large numbers of viewers • AOL Live 8 broadcast peaked at 175,000 (July 2005) • CBS NCAA broadcast peaked at 268,000 (March 2006) • NFL Superbowl 2007 had 93 million viewers in the U.S. (Nielsen Media Research) • Very high data rate • TV quality video encoded with MPEG-4 would require 1.5 Tbps aggregate capacity for 100 million viewers

  7. Video Streaming Approaches • IP Multicast • Content Distribution Networks • Expensive • Akamai, Limelight, etc • Application Layer Multicast • Alternative to IP Multicast • Peer-to-Peer Based • Scalable • No setup cost • Viable

  8. IP Multicast • Networklayer solution • Internet routers responsible for multicasting • Group membership: remember group members for each multicast session • Multicast routing: route data to members • Efficient bandwidth usage • Network topology is bestknown in network layer

  9. IP Multicast • Per-group state in routers • High complexity, especially in core routers • Scalability concern • Violation of the end-to-end design principle: ‘stateless’ • Slow deployment • Changes at infrastructural level • IP multicast is often disabled in routers • Difficult to support higher layer functionality • E.g., error control, flow control, and congestion control

  10. Content Distribution Networks (CDNs) • CDN nodes deployed at strategic locations • These nodes cooperate with each other to satisfy an end user’s request • User request is forwarded to a nearest CDN node, which has a cached copy • QoS improves, as end user receives best possible connection • Akamai, Limelight, etc

  11. CDN Example Origin server (www.foo.com) distributes HTML replaces: http://www.foo.com/sports.ruth.gif withhttp://www.cdn.com/www.foo.com/sports/ruth.gif HTTP request for www.foo.com/sports/sports.html origin server 1 DNS query for www.cdn.com 2 client CDN’s authoritative DNS server 3 HTTP request for www.cdn.com/www.foo.com/sports/ruth.gif CDN server near client CDN company(cdn.com) • distributes gif files • uses its authoritative DNS server to route redirect requests

  12. Application Layer Multicast (ALM) • Applicationlayer solution • Multicast functionality in end systems • End systems participate in multicast via an overlay structure • Overlay consists of application-layer links • Application-layer link is a logical link consisting of one or more links in underlying network • Most ALM approaches form tree-based topology • Tree construction & maintenance • Disruption in the event of churn and node failures

  13. ALM - Pros • Easy to deploy • No change to network infrastructure • Programmable end hosts • Overlay construction algorithms at end hosts can be easily applied • Application-specific customizations

  14. P2P Swarming Protocol • Data-driven/swarming protocol • Media content is broken down in small pieces and disseminated in a swarm • Neighbor nodes use a gossip protocol to exchange their buffer map • Nodes trade unavailable pieces • BitTorrent • CoolStreaming • PPLive, SopCast, Fiedian, and TVAnts are derivates of CoolStreaming • Proprietary and working philosophy not published • Reverse engineered and measurement studies released

  15. P2P Swarming Protocol Pull-based/mesh-based Redundant chunk avoidance Robustness and simplicity Data availability information rather than an explicit structure to guide data flow (i.e., no need for streaming tree construction) Periodical exchange of data availability with random partners and subsequent retrieval of missing data (i.e., minimal impact from upstream node failures) Higher overhead and longer streaming delay Real-time scheduling constraints (i.e., need for good peer and chunk selection algorithms)

  16. Tree-Push vs. Mesh-Pull

  17. Tree-Push vs. Mesh-Pull • Tree Based • Content flows from server to nodes along the tree • Node failures affect a complete sub-tree • Long recovery time • Mesh Based • Nodes maintain state information of neighbor nodes • Resilient to node failure • High control overhead

  18. Why Is P2P Streaming Hard? • Real-time constraints • Pieces needed in a sequential order and on time • Bandwidth constraints • Download speed >= video speed • High user expectations • Users spoiled with low start-up time and no/little loss • High churn rate • Robust network topology to minimize churn impact • Fairness difficult to achieve • High bandwidth peers have no incentive to contribute

  19. BT-Based P2P Streaming • BitTorrent • Meta data (.torrent file) • Download policy (piece selection: rarest first) • Upload policy (peer selection: Tit-for-tat)

  20. New Download Policy • Request highest priority pieces • High prio: download in-order • Mid/low prio: download rarest-first • Effect: • dl speed = video speed: peer stays in high prio • dl speed > video speed: peer is often in mid/low prio

  21. BiToS: BitTorrent Streaming BitTorrent adapted for video streaming Changes to BitTorrent’s piece selection algorithm

  22. CoolStreaming • Video file is chopped and disseminated in a swarm • Node upon arrival obtains a list of 40 peers from the server • Node contacts these peers to join the swarm • Every node has typically 4-8 neighbors, periodically sharing its buffer map with them • Node exchanges missing chunks with its neighbors • Deployed in the Internet and highly successful

  23. CoolStreaming • Membership Manager • Maintains a list of members in the group • Periodically generates membership messages • Distributes it using Scalable Gossip Membership Protocol (SGAM) • Partnership Manager • Partners are members that have expected data segments • ExchangesBuffer Map (BM) with partners • Buffer Map contains availability information of segments • Scheduler • Determines which segment should be obtained from which partner • Downloads segments frompartners and uploadstheir wanted segments

  24. Diagram of CoolStreaming System

  25. GridMedia • Designed to support large-scale live video streaming over the Internet • The first generation: Gridmedia I • Mesh-based multi-sender structure • Combined with IP multicast • First release: May 2004 • The second generation: Gridmedia II • Unstructured overlay • Push-pull streaming mechanism • First release: Jan. 2005

  26. Pure Random Pull-Based Protocol • Original GridMedia • Overlay construction • Peers self-organize into a richly connected random mesh • Video delivery • Peers periodically notifies its neighbor of what packets they hold in the current window of interest • Each peer randomly chooses a neighbor to request missing packets • If a packet does not arrive (i.e., timeout), it is repeatedly requested from a randomly selected neighbor until the packet slides out of the window

  27. Hybrid Pull-Push Protocol • Pull-based protocol has trade-off between control overhead and delay • To minimize the delay • Node notifies its neighbors of packet arrivals immediately • Neighbors also request the packet immediately • large control overhead • To decrease the overhead • Node waits until a group of packets arrive before informing its neighbors • Neighbors can also request a batch of packets at a time • considerable delay

  28. Pull mechanism as startup Successful pulls trigger packet pushes by the neighbors Every node subscribes to pushing packets from the neighbors Lost packets during the push interval are recovered by pull mechanism Pull-Push Streaming Mechanism

  29. Pull-Push Streaming Mechanism • n-sub streams: packets with sequence number s % n • Loop avoidance • For n-sub streams, there are n packets in a packet group • Packet party is composed of multiple packet groups. • Push switching is determined by the pull results of the first packet group in a packet party

  30. PPLive • Data-driven P2P streaming • Gossip-based protocols • Peer management • Channel discovery • Very popular P2P IPTV application • Over 100,000 simultaneous viewers and 40,000 viewers daily • Over 200+ channels • Windows Media Video and Real Video format

  31. Mobile P2P Streaming • Mobile video streaming • Rapid growth of mobile P2P communication • Video streaming expected to rise to as high as 91% of the Internet traffic in 2014 • Mobile environment • Increase of mobile and wireless peers • Unsteady network connections • Battery power • Various video coding for mobile devices • Frequent node churn • Security

  32. Mobile P2P Streaming • Mobile node issues • Uplink vs. downlink bandwidth • Battery power • Multiple interfaces • Geo-targeting • Other mobility considerations • Processing power • Link layer mobility • Mobile IP & proxy mobile IP • Tracker mobility

  33. Pioneering Approaches • Video proxy located at the edge of networks • Adaptive video transcoding considering the network conditions and constraints of mobile users • Distributed transcoding by fixed nodes • Sub-streams from multiple parents are assembled • Resilient to peer churns

  34. Pioneering Approaches • Hierarchical overlay • Multiple network interfaces – access link vs. sharing link • Peer fetches a video thru cellular networks (WAN) to share it with others over local networks (LAN) • Cooperative video streaming • P2P-based application layer channel bonding in resource-constrained mobile environments • Similar, in spirit, to channel/link bundling technology at link layer to efficiently leverage the combined capacity of all access links

  35. Questions?

More Related