1 / 22

Adaptive Peer-to-Peer Streaming

Adaptive Peer-to-Peer Streaming. Anh Nguyen. Outline. Current systems The ROMUS project Chameleon : A new adaptive streaming protocol Key components Initial Results Current Work. Current P2P streaming systems …. Source: http://www.downloadatoz.com/internet-tv-p2p-tv/.

jalen
Télécharger la présentation

Adaptive Peer-to-Peer Streaming

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. Adaptive Peer-to-Peer Streaming Anh Nguyen Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  2. Outline • Current systems • The ROMUS project • Chameleon: A new adaptive streamingprotocol • Key components • Initial Results • CurrentWork Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  3. CurrentP2Pstreamingsystems … Source: http://www.downloadatoz.com/internet-tv-p2p-tv/ Source: http://tvants.en.softonic.com/ Source: http://tvants.en.softonic.com/ Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  4. … theirlimitations • Provide the same Quality of Service to all their customers regardless of • network conditions • end-device’s characteristics • and user preferences • Stop-and-play Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  5. ROMUS – RObust Multimedia Streaming Services • provide each user with thebest possible experiencecorresponding to his/her end-devices’ characteristics and preferences under fluctuations of network conditions at any time during a streaming session Modified from http://www.springerlink.com/content/d16656h45n0h6368/ Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  6. Approach: Scalable Video Coding + P2P networking • An original SVC stream can be filtered to produce video of different qualities, spatial resolution, and frame rates -> adaptability -> expressiveness Source: http://ip.hhi.de/imagecom_G1/savce/ Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  7. The PhD work • Communication infrastructure • Concerns of the P2P paradigm and the applicability of SVC Can SVC be used with the P2P paradigm to provide best possible experience when considering context and individual preferences, while maintaining efficiency and scalability of streaming systems? Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  8. The main problem • Bandwidth and content bottleneck • -> the collaboration among peers is reduced, e.g. layer allocation is NP-hard. Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  9. Preliminary results • Tree-based Vs.Mesh-based overlay (or hybrid??) • Sender-driven Vs.Receiver-driven coordination • A segmentation method to use SVC in P2P • Exploiting Network Coding • coding at intermediate nodes in the overlay networks • all pieces of information are treated equally; every packet encoded by a peer is innovative to others. • Benefits • reduce delivery time among peers • increase the potential for peer collaboration • make the system more resilient to peer dynamics and bandwidth variations. Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  10. Chameleon: Adaptive P2P Streamingwith NC and SVC • A streamingprotocoldesigned to incorporate NC with SVC. • Adapts to networkfluctuations • Offers low skip rates and highqualitysatisfaction Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  11. Architecture • Invokedwhen peer joins or when peer wants to improvequalitylevel (periodically) • Forms/maintainstheoverlay. • Invokedwhenthe status ofthe playback buffer changes • adds/keeps/dropsqualitylevel • Selectspotential senders to send layerrequests • Sendsrequest to selected senders Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  12. Class-based Vs. Quality-basedNeighborSelection Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  13. QualityAdaptation • The status ofthe playback buffer withtwothresholds Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  14. QualityAdaptation Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  15. Sender Selection • Random-based Vs. Heuristic-basedselection • Closestavailablebandwidthcapacity (maximizeavailablebandwidthcapacityutilization) • Smallest numberofavailablelayers (maximizeavailablelayerutilization) Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  16. Peer Coordination • Receiver-drivenapproach • Eachreceiver: • sends requests for the lowest unavailable layer to all senders. • progressivelydecodesarrivedblocks • when having received enough linearly independent blocks, sends a stop notification (via buffer maps) to the senders, finishes the decoding process. • Each sender: • on receiving a request, performs network coding on available blocks of the requested layer, and sends newly coded blocks to the requesting peers automatically and continuously as soon as possible. • on receiving a stop notification, stops sending. Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  17. PerformanceMetrics Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  18. Performance Evaluation Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  19. Performance Evaluation Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  20. Adaptation Graph (1): playback skip (2): bufferingeffect Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  21. Current work • Takeuserpreferencesintoaccount • More experiments • Prototype? Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

  22. Thank you ! • Questions? Aurora Workshop, Oslo 24-26

More Related