Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byCornelia Cross Modified over 8 years ago
1
Optimal Content Delivery with Network Coding Derek Leong, Tracey Ho California Institute of Technology Rebecca Cathey BAE Systems CISS 2009 March 19, 2009
2
Motivation
3
S
4
S t t t t t t
5
S t t t t t t
6
S t t t t t t
7
S t t t t t t
8
S t t t t t t How to pick storage nodes? How to route dissemination and fetch flows?
9
Review: Subgraph Selection
10
Resultant shared flow must support individual flows Flows must be realizable within capacity Flows through each node must be conserved
11
Review: Subgraph Selection for CDNs
12
Storage flow in node memory, occurring over time Network coding allowed Network coding NOT allowed
13
Review: Subgraph Selection for CDNs
14
Total dissemination cost Total storage costTotal fetch cost
15
Review: Subgraph Selection for CDNs Resultant shared flow must support individual flows Flows must be realizable within capacity Flows through each node must be conserved
16
Review: Subgraph Selection for CDNs
17
Modified Formulations k-hop Fetch Constraint: Restrict fetch flows to within the k-hop neighborhood of each receiver
18
Robust Storage Distributed storage can be used to improve robustness of data availability in unreliable networks Intuitively, in a network where nodes or arcs fail probabilistically, the probability of a receiver being able to successfully fetch data increases with the amount of redundant storage and the proximity of storage nodes
19
Robust Storage Goal: Ensure each receiver can still successfully access content in the event that some nodes or arcs fail during the fetch stage
20
Robust Storage Exact but prohibitively complex approach: – Consider all possible failure events = { (occurrence prob, set of nodes & arcs that fail)} – Replace each receiver with a set of virtual receivers, one for each failure event affecting it – Allow fetch flows only through the corresponding unaffected nodes & arcs for each virtual receiver – Modify objective function to include fetch cost incurred by each virtual receiver, weighted by their respective probabilities, so that it continues to express the expected total cost
21
Robust Storage k-hop fetch constraint reduces the number of virtual receivers required – Example: To protect against the failure of up to any m arcs in the network, the number of virtual receivers required per receiver is Without fetch constraint : With 1-hop fetch constraint : – However, the number of virtual receivers still grows exponentially with the number of hops k
22
Robust Storage To allow flexibility in the number of hops k in the fetch constraint while remaining tractable, we can specify the virtual receivers first, and then compute the resulting minimum fetch success probability This approach enables us to lower-bound the success probability in terms of – number of hops k – probability of node or arc failure p – number of disjoint paths in the k-hop neighborhood of a receiver d for example
23
Robust Storage Using the following (d+1) virtual receivers for t – v 0 corresponding to the zero-failure event – v i corresponding to the event where only the arcs on paths P j, j ≠ i, are allowed to carry fetch flows for v i We can achieve success probability ≥ Prob[at most one of the d paths fails] =
24
Other Modified Formulations Potential Storage Nodes: Restrict potential storage nodes to some subset by changing the capacity
25
Other Modified Formulations Storage Budget Constraint: Impose an aggregate storage budget over all nodes
26
Other Modified Formulations Fetch Load Constraint: Bound the expected load on nodes and arcs during the fetch stage
27
Other Modified Formulations Dissemination Stage Receivers: Add node in the dissemination stage to the set of receivers
28
Other Modified Formulations Delivery of Multiple Content: Introduce separate flows for individual content, allowing network coding during only the dissemination stage and among flows for the same content
29
Performance Evaluation Compare Network-Coded Formulation (NCF) vs Minimum k-median Formulation (KMF), for the Delivery of Multiple Content (“multiobject placement”) subject to a given storage budget constraint Major difference between NCF and KMF: KMF minimizes only the total fetch cost, but NCF minimizes total fetch + dissemination cost Performance metric: NCF expected total dissemination + fetch cost KMF expected total dissemination + fetch cost =,
30
Performance Evaluation Compare Network-Coded Formulation (NCF) vs Minimum k-median Formulation (KMF), for the Delivery of Multiple Content (“multiobject placement”) subject to a given storage budget constraint Major difference between NCF and KMF: KMF minimizes only the total fetch cost, but NCF minimizes total fetch + dissemination cost Performance metric: NCF expected total dissemination + fetch cost KMF expected total dissemination + fetch cost =, Unit {dissemination, fetch} cost Expected total number of requests by a receiver over all objects
31
Performance Evaluation = 0 (“free dissemination”) NCF KMF
32
Performance Evaluation = 0 (“free dissemination”) Number of objects Storage budget NCF KMF
33
Performance Evaluation = 0 (“free dissemination”) NCF KMF
34
Performance Evaluation Number of objects |W| = 1 NCF KMF
35
Performance Evaluation Number of objects |W| = 1 Storage budget NCF KMF
36
Performance Evaluation Number of objects |W| = 1 NCF KMF
37
Performance Evaluation Number of objects |W| = 3 NCF KMF
38
Performance Evaluation Number of objects |W| = 5 NCF KMF
39
Performance Evaluation Number of objects |W| = 7 NCF KMF
40
Implementation Considerations Using a domain name system (DNS) to direct origin servers and end users to the nearest available CDN node Using source routing for the dissemination stage, and a DNS to resolve requests during the fetch stage Opportunistically caching coded data flows during the fetch stage
41
Augmenting with a P2P Network A hybrid CDN–P2P network achieves better scalability since end users help contribute bandwidth, storage, and computation resources CDN provides a reliable backbone for content delivery, and prevents severe service degradation in the face of high churn rates Specifying dissemination stage receivers when adopting a distributed hash table (DHT) based storage and lookup mechanism
42
Conclusion & Future Work Presented a unified LP formulation for optimal content delivery in CDNs Simulation results suggest NCF performs significantly better, even under modest circumstances (small network, few objects, low storage budget, low dissemination costs) Look forward to addressing content delivery in dynamic environments (e.g. mobile ad hoc networks)
43
Optimal Content Delivery with Network Coding Derek Leong, Tracey Ho California Institute of Technology Rebecca Cathey BAE Systems CISS 2009 March 19, 2009
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.