1. Presenter: Kuei-Yu Hsu Advisor: Dr. Kai-Wei Ke 2013/9/30 Performance analysis of video streaming on different hybrid CDN & P2P infrastructure

2. Outline Introduction Proposed Methods Simulation Model Simulation Results Conclusions References 2

3. Introduction Client-Server Architecture Content Delivery Network (CDN) Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Network Hybrid CDN & P2P 3

4. Client-Server Architecture 4 ANYONE can access the video/audio content freely from Internet ANYTIME and ANYWHERE. The traditional Client-Server architecture can't afford the number of growing users.

5. Content Delivery Network (CDN) 5 The key point of the CDN: 1. Replicate the content from the original content server at its local cache. 2. Distribute the content to clients.

6. Content Delivery Network (CDN) 6 CDN Benefits: Maximizing bandwidth utilization Reducing the response time for the end-users Achieving higher throughput through replicating content

7. Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Network 7 P2P architecture is applicable on the client side of the network. Clients become active associates by transmitting received content to other clients.

8. Hybrid CDN & P2P 8 Server: CDN → Client: P2P →

9. Proposed Method Dynamic Mobile Server (DMS) Proposed DMS 9

10. Dynamic Mobile Server (DMS) 10 Mobile Server (MS): A server application at the strategic network location to provide service. Service includes serving contents, providing computation, routing traffic etc. Here focus on serving content in a hierarchical manner, as opposed to mesh style in the typical P2P approach.

11. Proposed DMS 11 Workload of the nearest CDN server and network will decrease and hence allowing clients to be served.

12. Simulation Model Scenario 1: CDN-P2P Scenario 2: CDN-DMS Simulation parameters 12

13. Simulation Model 13 Network simulator: ns-2 Two types of scenario on the client-side: 1. P2P mesh 2. DMS 15 clients: 1. 10 clients receive video content 2. 3 clients receive Voice over IP (VoIP) data 3. 2 clients download some files via FTP

14. Simulation Model (cont.) 14 4 domains: content domain, CDN domain, ISP domain and client domain. Content Domain CDN Domain ISP Domain Client Domain a b c d VoIP server FTP server Media Client FTP Client & VoIP Client CDN server

15. Scenario 1: CDN-P2P 15

16. Scenario 2: CDN-DMS 16

17. Simulation parameters 17

18. Simulation Results 18

19. Performance indicators for video quality measurement: 1. average packet loss ratio 2. average frame loss ratio 3. average PSNR The raw video and received video of both CDN- P2P and CDN-DMS can be differentiated with the computation of PSNR (Peak Signal to Noise Ratio). Simulation Results 19 ↖ MSE (Mean Square Error)

20. Simulation Results (cont.) 20

21. Simulation Results (cont.) 21

22. Simulation Results (cont.) 22

23. Simulation Results (cont.) 23

24. Conclusions 24

25. Conclusions 25 This paper has conducted a simulation study to evaluate two content distribution approaches, namely P2P and DMS. Simulations were measured in PSNR graph for video quality and also average frame loss ratio, average packet loss ratio and average PSNR. Results showed that CDN-DMS achieved better performance as compared to CDN-P2P in PSNR metric.

26. References 26

27. References A. Passarella, “A Survey on Content-centric Technologies for the Current Internet: CDN and P2P solutions”, International Journal of Computer Communications, October, 2011. Hassan, M.M.; Choong Khong Neng; Lee Cheng Suan, “Performance analysis of video streaming on different hybrid CDN & P2P infrastructure”, Wireless Communications and Applications (ICWCA 2012), IET International Conference, p.1,6, 8-10 Oct. 2012 27

28. Thanks for listening 28