1. Multimedia Robert Grimm New York University

2. Before We Get Started…  Digest access authentication  What is the basic idea?  What is the encoding?  What is the role of the nonce?  Measurements (again)  Groups 1 and 5 each compared their server with the other group’s server

3. Comparing Results Groups 1 and 5 31 GETs for small files (< 24 KB) Server: class20/25.scs.cs.nyu.edu Client: Athlon XP 2200, 500 MB, Windows XP, cable modem GET 4 files (1K, 10K, 100K, 1M) Server: ??? Client: ???

4. Latency vs. Bandwidth Group 5’s Results

5. Content: Multimedia

6. Content: Multimedia Overview  Multimedia = audio and video  Saroiu et al.—An Analysis of Internet Content Delivery Systems  How is multimedia distributed over the Internet?  How much is there?  MacCanne et al.—Receiver-Driven Layered Multicast  How to best stream multimedia across the Internet?

7. Stefan Saroiu’s OSDI Talk

8. Streaming Multimedia  Based on broadcast model  One server, many clients  Clients subscribe to streams  Basic problem: Network heterogeneity  One approach: Fixed rate, least common denominator

9. Better Approach: Layered Transmission Scheme  Basic idea: Encode signal in many layers  Each layer provides better quality  Sum of layers represents a session  Cumulative layers  Independent layers  Simulcast

10. Underlying Network Model  Three assumptions  Best effort, multipoint packet delivery  Efficiency of IP Multicast  Group-oriented communication  Important issue: router drop policy

11. The RLM Protocol  Basic control loop  On congestion, drop a layer  On space capacity, add a layer

12. Capacity Inference  One option: Monitor link utilization in network  Problem: requires changes to network  Another option: Actively probe network  Join-experiments  Issues with join-experiments  Adaptability  Scalability

13. Join-Experiment Adaptability  Goal  Perform infrequently when likely to fail  Perform frequently when likely to succeed  Algorithm  Join-timer for each layer  Exponential backoff for problematic layers

14. Join-Experiment Adaptability (cont.)  How to correlate join-experiment with outcome?  Need to chose appropriate detection-time  Unknown  Variable  Use estimator  Initialize conservatively  Adjust based on failed join-experiments

15. Join-Experiment Scalability  Issue: interaction of independent join-experiments  Add congestion  Interfere with each other  Approach: scale frequency with group size  But, what about convergence?

16. Join-Experiment Scalability Shared Learning  Receiver notifies group of join-experiment  On congestion, other receivers increase corresponding join-timer  Conservative  Local

17. More on Shared Learning  Join-experiments are not completely exclusionary  Lower or equal level experiments may overlap  What about router drop policy?

18. Evaluation  Based on simulations (ns)  Two metrics  Worst-case short-term loss rate  Convergence time to sustainable throughput  Four topologies  Latency scalability  Session scalability  Bandwidth heterogeneity  Superposition

19. Results  RLM  Is sensitive to transmission latency  Scales with group size  Though, convergence time increases!  Supports bandwidth heterogeneity  Though, with increased loss rate  Supports simultaneous sessions  Though, allocation was often unfair

20. What Did You Learn Today?  Content distribution in the Internet  Receiver-driven layered multicast