Slice–and–Patch An Algorithm to Support VBR Video Streaming in a Multicast– based Video–on–Demand System.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
24-1 Chapter 24. Congestion Control and Quality of Service (part 1) 23.1 Data Traffic 23.2 Congestion 23.3 Congestion Control 23.4 Two Examples.
Advertisements

On Large-Scale Peer-to-Peer Streaming Systems with Network Coding Chen Feng, Baochun Li Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Toronto.
Scalable On-demand Media Streaming Anirban Mahanti Department of Computer Science University of Calgary Canada T2N 1N4.
Ying Wai Wong, Jack Y. B. Lee, Victor O. K. Li, and Gary S. H. Chan CSVT 2007 FEB Supporting Interactive Video-on-Demand With Adaptive Multicast Streaming.
Optimization of Data Caching and Streaming Media Kristin Martin November 24, 2008.
Scalable On-demand Media Streaming with Packet Loss Recovery Anirban Mahanti Department of Computer Science University of Calgary Calgary, AB T2N 1N4 Canada.
CHAINING COSC Content Motivation Introduction Multicasting Chaining Performance Study Conclusions.
Network Coding in Peer-to-Peer Networks Presented by Chu Chun Ngai
Efficient and Flexible Parallel Retrieval using Priority Encoded Transmission(2004) CMPT 886 Represented By: Lilong Shi.
Video Staging: A Proxy-Server- Based Approach to End-to-End Video Delivery over Wide-Area Networks Zhi-Li Zhang, Yuewei Wang, David H.C Du, Dongli Su Άννα.
Optimizing the quality of scalable video streams on p2p networks Raj Kumar Rajendran Dan Rubenstein DNA Group, Columbia University.
Client Buffering Techniques for Scalable Video Broadcasting Over Broadband Networks With Low User Delay S.-H. Gary Chan and S.-H. Ivan Yeung, IEEE Transactions.
Layered Range Multicast for Video On Demand Duc A. Tran Kien A. Hua Tai T. Do.
Supporting Stored Video: Reducing Rate Variability and End-toEnd Resource Requirements through Optimal Smoothing By James D. salehi, Zhi-Li Zhang, James.
End-to-End Analysis of Distributed Video-on-Demand Systems Padmavathi Mundur, Robert Simon, and Arun K. Sood IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, February.
Scalable and Continuous Media Streaming on Peer-to-Peer Networks M. Sasabe, N. Wakamiya, M. Murata, H. Miyahara Osaka University, Japan Presented By Tsz.
Analysis of Using Broadcast and Proxy for Streaming Layered Encoded Videos Wilson, Wing-Fai Poon and Kwok-Tung Lo.
1 Threshold-Based Multicast for Continuous Media Delivery Lixin Gao, Member, IEEE, and Don Towsley, Fellow, IEEE IEEE TRANSACTION ON MULTIMEDIA.
1 Provision of VCR-like Functions in Multicast VoD.
Periodic Broadcasting with VBR- Encoded Video Despina Saparilla, Keith W. Ross and Martin Reisslein (1999) Prepared by Nera Liu Wing Chun.
VCR-oriented Video Broadcasting for Near Video-On- Demand Services Jin B. Kwon and Heon Y. Yeon Appears in IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol.
A Monotonic-Decreasing Rate Scheduler for Variable-Bit-Rate Video Streaming Hin-lun Lai IEEE Transactions on Circuits and System for Video Technology,
Distributed Servers Architecture for Networked Video Services S.-H. Gary Chan and Fouad Tobagi Presented by Todd Flanagan.
1 Scheduling for Variable-Bit- Rate Video Streaming By H. L. Lai.
1 Node Selection For a Fault- Tolerant Streaming Service On A Peer-to-Peer Network Hyunjoo Kim, Sooyong Kang and Yeom H.Y.
Scalable On-Demand Media Streaming With Packet Loss Recovery Anirban Mahanti, Derek L. Eager, Mary K. Vernon, and David J. Sundaram-Stukel IEEE/ACM Trans.
Prefix Caching assisted Periodic Broadcast for Streaming Popular Videos Yang Guo, Subhabrata Sen, and Don Towsley.
HHMSM: A Hierarchical Hybrid Multicast Stream Merging Scheme For Large-Scale Video-On-Demand Systems Hai Jin and Dafu Deng Huazhong University of Science.
End-to-End Analysis of Distributed Video-on-Demand Systems P. Mundur, R. Simon, and A. K. Sood IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, Vol. 6, No. 1, Feb 2004.
Distributed Servers Architecture for Networked Video Services S. H. Gary Chan, Member IEEE, and Fouad Tobagi, Fellow IEEE.
Optimal Multicast Smoothing of Streaming Video Over the Internet Subhabrata Sen, Don Towsley, Zhi-Li Zhang, and Jayanta K. Dey IEEE J. Selected Areas in.
Optimal Proxy Cache Allocation for Efficient Streaming Media Distribution Bing Wang, Subhabrata Sen, Micah Adler, and Don Towsley INFOCOM 2002.
A Server-less Architecture for Building Scalable, Reliable, and Cost-Effective Video-on-demand Systems Presented by: Raymond Leung Wai Tak Supervisor:
Periodic broadcasting with VBR-encoded video Despina Saparilla, Keith W. Ross, and Martin Reisslein 1999 IEEE INFOCOM Hsin-Hua, Lee.
Performance Evaluation of Peer-to-Peer Video Streaming Systems Wilson, W.F. Poon The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Differentiated Multimedia Web Services Using Quality Aware Transcoding S. Chandra, C.Schlatter Ellis and A.Vahdat InfoCom 2000, IEEE Journal on Selected.
Smooth Workload Adaptive Broadcast Yang Guo, Lixin Gao Don Towsley, Subhabrata Sen IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MULTIMEDIA, APRIL 2004.
1 On a Unified Architecture for Video-on-Demand Services Jack Y. B. Lee IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MULTIMEDIA, VOL. 4, NO. 1, MARCH 2002.
Multicast with Cache (Mcache): An Adaptive Zero-Delay Video-on-Demand Service Sridhar Ramesh, Injong Rhee, and Katherine Guo INFOCOM 2001.
Server-Based Smoothing of Variable Bit-Rate Streams Stergios V. Anastasiadis, Kenneth C. Sevcik, and Michael Stumm ACM Multimedia 2001.
Recursive Patching by Wong Ying Wai. Agenda Introduction Review on patching  Patching  Transition patching Recursive patching Stream assignment Performance.
Scalable Live Video Streaming to Cooperative Clients Using Time Shifting and Video Patching Meng Guo and Mostafa H. Ammar INFOCOM 2004.
Streaming Video Gabriel Nell UC Berkeley. Outline Scalable MPEG-4 video – Layered coding method – Integrated transport-decoder buffer model RAP streaming.
Adaptive Rate Control for Streaming Stored Fine- Grained Scalable Video Philippe de Cuetos, Keith W. Ross NOSSDAV 2002, May 12-14,2002.
Peer-to-peer Multimedia Streaming and Caching Service by Won J. Jeon and Klara Nahrstedt University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, USA.
Design of an Interactive Video- on-Demand System Yiu-Wing Leung, Senior Member, IEEE, and Tony K. C. Chan IEEE Transactions on multimedia March 2003.
Statistical Multiplexer of VBR video streams By Ofer Hadar Statistical Multiplexer of VBR video streams By Ofer Hadar.
On-Demand Media Streaming Over the Internet Mohamed M. Hefeeda, Bharat K. Bhargava Presented by Sam Distributed Computing Systems, FTDCS Proceedings.
Reducing Bandwidth Requirement for Delivering Video Over Wide Area Networks With Proxy Server Wei-hsiu Ma and David H. C. Du IEEE Transactions on Multimedia,
Optimizing the Quality of Scalable Video Streams in P2P Networks Impact Method Viewing scalably encoded videos in P2P systems without smart prefecthing.
CS Spring 2012 CS 414 – Multimedia Systems Design Lecture 34 – Media Server (Part 3) Klara Nahrstedt Spring 2012.
Can Internet Video-on-Demand Be Profitable? SIGCOMM 2007 Cheng Huang (Microsoft Research), Jin Li (Microsoft Research), Keith W. Ross (Polytechnic University)
1 Proxy-Assisted Techniques for Delivering Continuous Multimedia Streams Lixin Gao, Zhi-Li Zhang, and Don Towsley.
Buffer Management for Shared- Memory ATM Switches Written By: Mutlu Apraci John A.Copelan Georgia Institute of Technology Presented By: Yan Huang.
E0262 MIS - Multimedia Playback Systems Anandi Giridharan Electrical Communication Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore – , India.
An Analysis of Chaining Protocols for Video-on-Demand J.-F. Pâris University of Houston Thomas Schwarz, S. J. Universidad Católica del Uruguay.
1 Cache Me If You Can. NUS.SOC.CS5248 OOI WEI TSANG 2 You Are Here Network Encoder Sender Middlebox Receiver Decoder.
1 Optimal Multicast Smoothing of Streaming Video over an Internetwork S. Sen, D. Towsley, Z-L. Zhang, J. Dey
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches Authors: Jussi Kangasharju Felix HartantoMartin Reisslein Keith W. Ross Proceedings of IEEE Infocom 2001,
RANI NALAMARU DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE BALL STATE UNIVERSITY RANI NALAMARU DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE BALL STATE UNIVERSITY Efficient Transmission.
A Comparison of Layering and Stream Replication Video Multicast Schemes Taehyun Kim and Mostafa H. Ammar Networking and Telecommunications Group Georgia.
Managing VBR Videos. The VBR Problem Constant quality Burstiness over multiple time scales Difference within and between scenes Frame structure of encoding.
CS Spring 2011 CS 414 – Multimedia Systems Design Lecture 16 – Multimedia Transport (Part 2) Klara Nahrstedt Spring 2011.
Scalable video distribution techniques Laurentiu Barza PLANETE project presentation: Sophia Antipolis 12 October 2000.
Cost-Effective Video Streaming Techniques Kien A. Hua School of EE & Computer Science University of Central Florida Orlando, FL U.S.A.
The Impact of Replacement Granularity on Video Caching
Video on Demand (VoD) March, 2003
Video On Demand.
Video Streaming over Cognitive radio networks
Presentation transcript:

Slice–and–Patch An Algorithm to Support VBR Video Streaming in a Multicast– based Video–on–Demand System

Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Constant Bit Rate vs. Variable Bit Rate 3. Super–Scalar Video–on–Demand (SS–VoD) 4. Challenge in supporting VBR video 5. Static Channel Priority 6. Dynamic Channel Priority 7. Slice–and–Patch 8. Simulation Result

Introduction True video–on–demand (TVoD) system Dedicated channel for every client Problem: doesn’t scale up well Make use of network multicast to solve scalability problem Allows multiple clients to receive data from one single channel Examples: Periodic Broadcasting, Batching, Patching

Assumption – CBR Assumption in these multicast VoD architecture Videos are constant–bit–rate (CBR) encoded Constant–Bit–Rate (CBR) Resource allocation is easy  Example Video bit rate – 3 Mbps Channel available if 3 Mbps of bandwidth is available Problem 1. Visual Quality varies over the whole video Encoder generates same number of output bits for all scenes Complicated scenes will suffer greater quality degradation 2. Potential waste of resources Bits are wasted for encoding less–complicated scene

Variable–Bit–Rate Variable–Bit–Rate (VBR) Advantages  Visual Quality consistent over the whole video Less output bits for less complicated scene More output bits for complicated scene to maintain quality  Potential increase in resource utilization Similar visual quality at only half average bit rate Problem  Resource allocation is more difficult in streaming VBR data W. S. Tan, N. Duong, J. Princen, “A Comparison Study of Variable-bit-rate versus Fixed-bit-rate Video Transmission,” Proc. Australian Broadband Switching and Services Symposium, 1991, pp

SS–VoD Multicast–based Video–on–Demand System Designed based on CBR video streaming Two kinds of channels: Static Channels  Each static channel broadcast the whole video repeatedly  Broadcasting channels staggered to start every T r seconds Dynamic Channels  Allocated when clients are admitted  Stream missed content to the clients J. Y. B. Lee, C. H. Lee, “Design, Performance Analysis, and Implementation of a Super-Scalar Video-on-Demand System,” submitted for publication.

SS–VoD Client Admission Statically Admitted Clients  Admitted if clients arrived in the threshold region (t ad before the start of a static channel) of the coming static channel  Clients cache data from the static channel for playback Dynamically Admitted Clients  Request clients to wait if bandwidth is not enough  If bandwidth is available, serve all waiting clients  Admitted clients cache data from the static and dynamic channel synchronously

SS–VoD – Example At t 0, resource is available A dynamic channel is allocated to serve all waiting clients Dynamic channel hold for  = t 0 – t m At t 1, clients arrived during threshold region Wait for the start of the static channel Static Channels t1t1 t0t0 t ad Data received by C 1  tmtm TrTr

SS–VoD – CBR based Assume clients can retrieve data from 2 channels synchronously Clients’ max. access bandwidth = 6 Mbps Average bit rate of video = 3 Mbps For CBR video  Each channel only requires 3 Mbps  Fully retrieval of data from 2 channels guaranteed For VBR video, bit rate may vary from 2 Mbps to 4Mbps  Each channel may stream data at a bit rate equal to the video’s actual bit rate  2 channels of data may require bandwidth > 6 Mbps

VBR – Solutions 1. Temporal smoothing [1] Make use of client’s buffer to receive data in advance Piecewise linear delivery of video data Problem  Smoothed video is still VBR 2. Data skipping [2] Priority given to channel with greatest demand of data Channel that cannot be served is skipped Problem  No guarantee of full–retrieval of video data  Possibly quality degradation [1]W. Feng, S. Sechrest, “Smoothing and Buffering for the Delivery of Pre-recorded Video,” Proc. ISET/SPIE Multimedia Computing and Networking, Feb 1995, pp [2]D. Saparilla, K. W. Ross, M. Reisslein, “Periodic Broadcasting with VBR-Encoded Video” Proc. IEEE Infocom 1999, New York City, US, March 1999.

VBR – Solutions 1. Static Channel Priority Caches more data from static channel 2. Dynamic Channel Priority Fully use client’s access bandwidth by dynamic channel 3. Slice–and–Patch Prefetch, Slice, Three–Phase–Patching

Static Channel Priority Assume client access bandwidth = R max Mbps Static channel broadcast video data following the video bit rate profile v(t) Mbps Dynamic channel stream missed data at the rate u(t)=R max – v(t) Mbps Bandwidth of the dynamic channel may be lower than the video bit rate

Static Channel Priority Prefetch Delay ~55s If start playback earlier  Data accumulated < Data Consumed  Not smooth playback

Dynamic Channel Priority Static channel broadcast video data following the video bit rate profile v(t) Mbps Dynamic channel stream missed data at the rate u(t)=R max Mbps Clients only cache data from the dynamic channel Clients should have missed the data: 1. already broadcasted by the static channel 2. missed during reception of data from dynamic channel

Dynamic Channel Priority Dynamic Channel held until data accumulated reach the data broadcasted from the static channel

Slice–and–Patch Prefetch data to reduce Peak Rate of the video Slice the video Minimize amount of prefetch data Allow clients to cache data from the static channel Three–phase patching (TPP) Maintain smooth playback once playback is started Maximize the use of static channels

Slice Assumption Clients’ max. access bandwidth = R max Mbps Average Bit Rate of encoded video = R avg Mbps Server’s max. bandwidth = B max Mbps Slice video from start of the video to T A = T r +pT r p = (2R cut –R max )/(R max –R cut ) R avg < R cut < 2/3(R max )

Slice – Procedure Step 1 – Slice A  Collect all data above R cut to form Slice A Step 2 – Slice B  Portion 1: From start of video to TA Remaining video data that exceeds the bitrate (R max  R cut ) Bit rate bounded by 2R cut –R max  Portion 2: From TA to end of video All video data that exceeds the bitrate (R max –R cut )

Slice – Procedure Step 3 – Slice C  The rest of the video data after the first 2 steps  Rate of video < (R max –R cut ) Video Playback Time C3 A1A1 A2A2 A3A3 A4A4 R max R cut R max  R cut Bit Rate Slice B Slice C Slice A TATA

Bandwidth Allocation 1. Allocate R max for repeatedly broadcasting Slice A Broadcast repeatedly once every t da =A/R max seconds 2. Remaining bandwidth divided equally between static and dynamic channels Static Channels  Slice B and Slice C broadcasted by separate channels  Number of these two channels is equal  1 Pair of these channels is grouped to 1 static channel  Broadcast video following the actual bit rate  Offline numerical procedures to find the number of static channels that can fit in the bandwidth (B max  R max )/2

Static Channels B R max AAAAAAAA … Time Bit Rate 2R cut –R max TATA Bit Rate Time C R max –R cut Time Bit Rate

Three–Phase Patching (TPP) Phase 1 Purpose – Cache all “high rate” data Duration – t da Phase 2 Purpose – Support playback immediately Duration – t 1 –t m  t 1 – time when dynamic channel is available  t m – time when last static channel starts broadcasting Phase 3 Purpose – Stream missed content during phase 2 Duration – p(t 1 –t m )

TPP – Dynamic Channel Allocated when a bandwidth of R cut is available Phase 2 Bandwidth Reserved = R cut Purpose – stream Slice B & C to clients On completion – switch to phase 3 Phase 3 Bandwidth reserved reduced to (2R max –R cut ) Excess bandwidth returned for new dynamic channels Purpose – Stream missed Slice B during phase 2 On completion – release the channel

TPP – Example B3B3 C3C3 C3C3 t0t0 A Slice B Slice C Client Playback Dynamic Channel Slice A tmtm t1t1 B1B1 B2B2 B1B1 B3B3 B2B2 Received Data 2t 1 –t m C1C1 C1C1 C2C2 B1B1 B3B3 B2B2 B1B1 C1C1 C3C3 C2C2 C2C2 C1C1 B2B2 AA R max R cut R max – R cut Phase 1Phase 2Phase 3

TPP – Properties Max. length of phase 3 Latest dynamic channel starts at t =T r +t m Duration of phase 2 = t –t m =T r Max. Size of Slice B missed = (2R cut –R max )T r Max. Time required = T r (2R cut –R max )/(R max –R cut ) Rate reduction Occur when switching from phase 2 to phase 3 Dynamic channel may be available at point of rate reduction Increase number of network resource negotiations

TPP – Smooth Playback Smooth Playback guarantee 1. During phase 2  Dynamic channel stream slice B & C following actual bit rate  Video bit rate is followed 2. During phase 3  Whole slice C that would be needed is cached  Dynamic channel stream slice B at bit rate > actual bit rate of slice C  Client must have more video data than needed in advance 3. After phase 3  Smooth playback supported by static channels

Performance Evaluation Simulation Compare to SS–VoD with CBR video For S&P, R cut set to 1.1R t where R t is the average bit rate over first 2T r VBR video bit rate traces from 50 DVD movies All bit rate traces scaled to average 3 Mbps Server has total bandwidth = 150 Mbps Clients’ max access bandwidth = 6 Mbps Simulation time = 30 days

Simulation Result

Static Channel Priority Dynamic Channel Priority Slice & Patch Averge increase of mean latency 550%120%50% Variance of increase of mean latency 865%14%40% Max increase of mean latency >2000%180%

Conclusion Price to pay using S&P is low ~50% increase of mean latency Visual Quality is much improved Performance of S&P can be further improved with optimized R cut