A simple model for analyzing P2P streaming protocols. Seminar on advanced Internet applications and systems Amit Farkash. 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Performance Analysis of Peer-to-Peer File Transfer Network Sayantan Mitra Vibhor Goyal 1.
Advertisements

Dissemination-based Data Delivery Using Broadcast Disks.
CLive Cloud-Assisted P2P Live Streaming
Playback delay in p2p streaming systems with random packet forwarding Viktoria Fodor and Ilias Chatzidrossos Laboratory for Communication Networks School.
On Large-Scale Peer-to-Peer Streaming Systems with Network Coding Chen Feng, Baochun Li Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Toronto.
Kangaroo: Video Seeking in P2P Systems Xiaoyuan Yang †, Minas Gjoka ¶, Parminder Chhabra †, Athina Markopoulou ¶, Pablo Rodriguez † † Telefonica Research.
Peer-assisted On-demand Streaming of Stored Media using BitTorrent-like Protocols Authors: Niklas Carlsson & Derek L. Eager Published in: Proc. IFIP/TC6.
A simple model for analyzing P2P streaming protocols. Seminar on advanced Internet applications and systems Amit Farkash. 1.
Network Coding in Peer-to-Peer Networks Presented by Chu Chun Ngai
Understanding the Performance Gap between Pull-based Mesh Streaming Protocols and Fundamental Limits Chen Feng, Baochun Li and Bo Li Presented by Zhiming.
Modelling and Performance Analysis of BitTorrent-Like Peer-to-Peer Networks.
Efficient and Flexible Parallel Retrieval using Priority Encoded Transmission(2004) CMPT 886 Represented By: Lilong Shi.
Receiver-driven Layered Multicast S. McCanne, V. Jacobsen and M. Vetterli SIGCOMM 1996.
Multimedia Proxy Caching Mechanism for Quality Adaptive Streaming Applications in the Internet Reza Rejaie Haobo Yu Mark Handley Deborah Estrin Presented.
ZIGZAG A Peer-to-Peer Architecture for Media Streaming By Duc A. Tran, Kien A. Hua and Tai T. Do Appear on “Journal On Selected Areas in Communications,
Network Coding for Large Scale Content Distribution Christos Gkantsidis Georgia Institute of Technology Pablo Rodriguez Microsoft Research IEEE INFOCOM.
1 Adaptive Live Broadcasting for Highly-Demanded Videos Hung-Chang Yang, Hsiang-Fu Yu and Li-Ming Tseng IEEE International Conference on Parallel and Distributed.
AQM for Congestion Control1 A Study of Active Queue Management for Congestion Control Victor Firoiu Marty Borden.
Service Differentiated Peer Selection An Incentive Mechanism for Peer-to-Peer Media Streaming Ahsan Habib, Member, IEEE, and John Chuang, Member, IEEE.
Distributed Video Streaming Over Internet Thinh PQ Nguyen and Avideh Zakhor Berkeley, CA, USA Presented By Sam.
Locality-Aware Request Distribution in Cluster-based Network Servers 1. Introduction and Motivation --- Why have this idea? 2. Strategies --- How to implement?
Prefix Caching assisted Periodic Broadcast for Streaming Popular Videos Yang Guo, Subhabrata Sen, and Don Towsley.
Distributed Multimedia Streaming over Peer-to-Peer Network Jin B. Kwon, Heon Y. Yeom Euro-Par 2003, 9th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed.
Quality-Aware Segment Transmission Scheduling in Peer-to-Peer Streaming Systems Cheng-Hsin Hsu Senior Research Scientist Deutsche Telekom R&D Lab USA Los.
Optimal Proxy Cache Allocation for Efficient Streaming Media Distribution Bing Wang, Subhabrata Sen, Micah Adler, and Don Towsley INFOCOM 2002.
Understanding Mesh-based Peer-to-Peer Streaming Nazanin Magharei Reza Rejaie.
Performance Evaluation of Peer-to-Peer Video Streaming Systems Wilson, W.F. Poon The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
On Peer-to-Peer Media Streaming by Dongyan Xu, Mohamed Hefeeda, Susanne Hambrusch, Bharat Bhargava Dept. of Computer Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette.
Loopback: Exploiting Collaborative Caches for Large-Scale Streaming Ewa Kusmierek, Yingfei Dong, Member, IEEE, and David H. C. Du, Fellow, IEEE.
CUHK Analysis of Movie Replication and Benefits of Coding in P2P VoD Yipeng Zhou Aug 29, 2012.
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.
Exploring VoD in P2P Swarming Systems By Siddhartha Annapureddy, Saikat Guha, Christos Gkantsidis, Dinan Gunawardena, Pablo Rodriguez Presented by Svetlana.
COCONET: Co-Operative Cache driven Overlay NETwork for p2p VoD streaming Abhishek Bhattacharya, Zhenyu Yang & Deng Pan.
1 V1-Filename.ppt / yyyy-mm-dd / Initials P2P content distribution T Applications and Services in Internet, Fall 2008 Jukka K. Nurminen.
Developing Analytical Framework to Measure Robustness of Peer-to-Peer Networks Niloy Ganguly.
An Analysis of Chaining Protocols for Video-on-Demand J.-F. Pâris University of Houston Thomas Schwarz, S. J. Universidad Católica del Uruguay.
DELAYED CHAINING: A PRACTICAL P2P SOLUTION FOR VIDEO-ON-DEMAND Speaker : 童耀民 MA1G Authors: Paris, J.-F.Paris, J.-F. ; Amer, A. Computer.
1 BitHoc: BitTorrent for wireless ad hoc networks Jointly with: Chadi Barakat Jayeoung Choi Anwar Al Hamra Thierry Turletti EPI PLANETE 28/02/2008 MAESTRO/PLANETE.
1 Towards Cinematic Internet Video-on-Demand Bin Cheng, Lex Stein, Hai Jin and Zheng Zhang HUST and MSRA Huazhong University of Science & Technology Microsoft.
LOCALITY-AWARENESS IN BITTORRENT-LIKE P2P APPLICATIONS R 黃琇琳 R 呂柏頡.
MULTI-TORRENT: A PERFORMANCE STUDY Yan Yang, Alix L.H. Chow, Leana Golubchik Internet Multimedia Lab University of Southern California.
A Scalable Content-Addressable Network (CAN) Seminar “Peer-to-peer Information Systems” Speaker Vladimir Eske Advisor Dr. Ralf Schenkel November 2003.
Quantitative Evaluation of Unstructured Peer-to-Peer Architectures Fabrício Benevenuto José Ismael Jr. Jussara M. Almeida Department of Computer Science.
B IT T ORRENT T ECHNOLOGY Anthony Pervetich. H ISTORY Bram Cohen Designed the BitTorrent protocol in April 2001 Released July 2, 2001 Concept Late 90’s.
TCP with Variance Control for Multihop IEEE Wireless Networks Jiwei Chen, Mario Gerla, Yeng-zhong Lee.
A Simple Model for Analyzing P2P Streaming Protocols Zhou Yipeng Chiu DahMing John, C.S. Lui The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
BALANCING THROUGHPUT, ROBUSTNESS, AND IN- ORDER DELIVERY IN P2P VOD Bin Fan, David G. Andersen, Michael Kaminsky†, Konstantina Papagiannaki † Carnegie.
Cooperative Mobile Live Streaming Considering Neighbor Reception SPEAKER: BO-YU HUANG ADVISOR: DR. HO-TING WU 2015/10/15 1.
Content caching and scheduling in wireless networks with elastic and inelastic traffic Group-VI 09CS CS CS30020 Performance Modelling in Computer.
Peer-to-Peer Streaming of Scalable Video in Future Internet Application Speaker : 吳靖緯 MA0G0101 Communications Magazine, IEEE, On page(s): 128.
Time-Shifted Streaming in a P2P Video Multicast System Jeonghun Noh, Aditya Mavlankar, Pierpaolo Baccichet 1, and Bernd Girod Information Systems Laboratory.
Application Level QoS in Multimedia Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Networks Alireza Goudarzi Nematiy and Makoto Takizawa¤ Tokyo Denki University
SHADOWSTREAM: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AS A CAPABILITY IN PRODUCTION INTERNET LIVE STREAM NETWORK ACM SIGCOMM CING-YU CHU.
Network and Systems Laboratory nslab.ee.ntu.edu.tw Yipeng Zhou, Dah Ming Chiu, and John C.S. Lui Information Engineering Department The Chinese University.
Improving QoS in BitTorrent-like VoD Systems Yan Yang Alix L.H. Chow Leana Golubchik Dannielle Bragg Univ. of Southern California Harvard University InfoCom.
Large-Scale and Cost-Effective Video Services CS587x Lecture Department of Computer Science Iowa State University.
Dynamic Load Balancing Tree and Structured Computations.
Cost-Effective Video Streaming Techniques Kien A. Hua School of EE & Computer Science University of Central Florida Orlando, FL U.S.A.
Accelerating Peer-to-Peer Networks for Video Streaming
Discrete-time Markov chain (DTMC) State space distribution
An example of peer-to-peer application
The Impact of Replacement Granularity on Video Caching
Mohammad Malli Chadi Barakat, Walid Dabbous Alcatel meeting
On Scheduling of Peer-to-Peer Video Services
Video On Demand.
Javad Ghaderi, Tianxiong Ji and R. Srikant
Balancing Throughput, Robustness, and In-Order Delivery in P2P VoD
Understanding Congestion Control Mohammad Alizadeh Fall 2018
Presentation transcript:

A simple model for analyzing P2P streaming protocols. Seminar on advanced Internet applications and systems Amit Farkash. 1

The problem: Streaming video from a server to a single client is well studied and understood. Not scalable to serve a large number of clients simultaneously. P2P streaming tries to achieve scalability (like P2P file distribution) while at the same time meet real time playback requirements. It is a challenging problem still not well understood. 2

Introduction P2P Streaming System - P2P resolves this scalability problem by using all resources of all clients. It is like using multiple trees simultaneously to deliver content. Server Peer Fully connected Peers maintain: * buffer * neighbor list

P2P streaming vs. P2P file sharing: P2P streaming is less demanding – no need for entire file. 1) Peers join the video session from the point of their arrival times. 2) Missing “just a few” frames is tolerable. P2P streaming is more demanding - real time requirements! 4

Basic model How buffer works?  Server sends out chunks sequentially.  Peer downloads one chunk every time slot  Buffer shits ahead one position one time slot playback server 1 t=1 2 1 t= t=3 Buffer ……….

Model & Chunk Selection Strategies M peers with the same playback requirement Each has a playback buffer In each time slot, the server randomly selects one peer and uploads one chunk Users’ metric is the continuity, defined as p(n), the probability chunk n available To compute p(n), recursively compute p(i). p(i) is defined as: p(i)=prob(position i filled) 1 2 …………… n … M peers playback server 1/M

Basic model Pk(i)[t] – probability that B(i) of peer k is filled (with the correct) chunk at time t. Assumption: this probability reaches a steady state for large t, namely Pk(i)[t] = Pk(i). We call Pk(i) the buffer occupancy probability of peer k. Simple case - only server is distributing chunks:  P k (1) = P(1) = 1/M. ∀ k.  P k (i+1) = P(i+1) = P(i). i=1,…,n-1. ∀ k.  Obviously very poor playback for any M>1. 7

Improvement: Each peer selects another peer in each time slot to try and download a chunk not already in its buffer. If the selected peer has no useful chunk, no chunk is downloaded in that time slot All peers use the same selection strategy, therefore have the same distribution P(i) Assume peers are selected randomly. 8

Improvement: Since peers are selected randomly the probability for a peer, A,to be selected by K≥0 peers is: A(k) = If M=100, A(3) is only about 1.8 % assume A's peer's upload capacity is large enough to serve all requests in each time slot. 9

P2p technology effect Model & Chunk Selection Strategies Each peer’s buffer is a sliding window In each time slot, each peer downloads a chunk from server or its neighbor q(i) = the probability Buf[i] gets filled at this time slot, for i>1 1 2 …………… n p(1)=1/M p(n)=? time=t 1 2 …………… n t+1 p(1)=1/M sliding window P(1) = 1/M (Boundary)

Chunk selection policy: P(i+1) = P(i) + Q(i) = P(i) + Pr[WANT(K,i)∩Pr[HAVE(H,i)]∩Pr[SELECT(H,K,i)] Assume all peers are independent so P(i) is the same for each K, therefore: WANT(K,i) = 1-P(i). Assume large enough number of peers so that knowing the state of one does not significantly affect the probability of the state of another peer, therefore: Pr[HAVE(H,i)|WANT(K,i)] ≈ Pr[HAVE(H,i)]=P(i). Assume chunks are independently distributed in the network, so the probability distribution for position i is not strongly affected by the knowledge of the state of other positions, therefore: Pr[SELECT(H,K,i)|WANT(K,i) ∩ HAVE(H,i)] ≈ Pr[SELECT(H,K,i)] = SELECT(i). 11

Model & Chunk Selection Strategies  w(i) = probability peer wants to fill Buf[i] w(i)=1-p(i)  h(i) = probability the selected peer has the content for Buf[i] h(i)=p(i)  s(i) = Buf[i] determined by chunk selection strategy  P(i) + [1-P(i)] P(i) SELECT(i) 1 2 …… i … n p(1)=1/M p(n) peer 1 2.….. i … n neighbor p(1)=1/M sliding window

Buffer mapX X playback Model & Chunk Selection Strategies Greedy Strategy -try to fill the empty buffer closest to playback Rarest First Strategy -try to fill the empty buffer for the newest chunk since p(i) is an increasing function, this means “Rarest First” An example RF SelectionGreedy Selection

Performance metrics: We will compare downloading strategies based on two performance metrics: Continuity – probability of continues playback. Startup latency – expected time to start playback. 14

Greedy: Pr[chunk isn't downloaded to B(j)] = ¬Pr[WANT(K,j)HAVE(H,j)] = Pr[K has j] + Pr[K doesn't have j] * Pr[H doesn't have j] = Pk(j) + (1-Pk(j)) (1-Ph(j)) = P(j) + (1-P(j))² Therefore: SELECTG(i) Proposition: SELECTG(i) = 1 - (P(n) - P(i+1)) - P(1) For Proof see paper, proposition 1.paper 15

Rarest first Peer K will select to download chunk to B(i) if B(j) are filled for every 1≤j<i and it was not distributed a chunk by the server: Therefore: SELECTRF(i) Proposition: SELECTRF(i) = 1 – P(i) For Proof see paper, proposition 2paper 16

Difference equation & Differential equation Greedy p(i+1)=p(i)+ (1-p(i)) * p(i) * (1-p(1)-p(n)+p(i+1)) Rarest first p(i+1)=p(i)+ (1-p(i)) * p(i) * (1-p(i)) Derive differential equation from difference equation s(i)h(i)w(i) h(i)s(i)

Differential equations Solve previous differential equations, derive continuous model Based on continuous model, derive partial differential equation Greedy : Rarest First :

Mixed strategy Partition the buffer at point m. Try to download a chunk using Rarest first to positions 1…m. If no chunk can be downloaded using Rarest first, use Greedy for positions m+1…n. For B(1) to B(m) same as Rarest first: P(1) = 1/M. P(i+1) ≈ P(i) + P(i) [1-P(i)]² For B(m+1) to B(n) same as Greedy but substitute B(m) for B(1): P(i+1) ≈ P(i) + P(i) [1-P(i)] [ 1-P(m)-P(n)+P(i+1)] 19

Evaluating performances: We already have Continuity: P(n) Start up latency: time a peer should wait before starting playback. Assuming all other peers have already reached steady states A newly arriving peer should wait until its buffer has reached steady state as well 20

Models from comparison: Discrete model – The solution for the buffer state distribution P(i) is derived numerically  Greedy Strategy : given P(n) a fixed value, substitutes n steps inversely from P(n) to P(1) and compare P(1) with 1/M  Greedy Strategy : substitute p(i) from p(l) until p(n) Mixed Strategy : Continuous model – Generally solved numerically using MatLab. Simulation model – Based on the discrete model. o One server and M peers. o In each time slot the server distributes one chunk to a random peer. o Each peer selects one random peer to download one chunk from and can upload up to two peers. 21

Validation M=1000 N=40 In simulation, – # neighbors=60 – Uploads at most 2 in each time slot for one peer Validate our model

SimRarest first vs. Greedy vs. Mixed 1000 peers, 40 buffer Compare three strategies, especially the curve for Mixed. Rarest First Greedy Mixed

Rarest first vs. Greedy vs. Mixed: 1000 peers, buffer length varies from 20 to 40. For different buffer sizes Mixed achieves best continuity than both RF and Greedy Mixed has better start-up latency than RF Mixed RF Greedy RF Mixed Greedy

Optimizing the Mixed Strategy: Fix n to 40 and vary m: 25

Performance for Small Scale Networks n=15 Timeslot = 3000

Performance for Small Scale Networks For (a), there are 40 peers. Greedy is better. For (b), the continuity requirement is fixed at RF is better RF Greedy RF

Study of Dynamics Simulate 1000 peers, 2000 time slots, n=40 Continuity is the average continuity of all peers Continuity for Mixed is more consistent, as well highest Mixed

Study of Dynamics Start up latency = 16 Arrive at t = 1000 – 16 Start playback at t = 1000

Optimizing the Mixed Strategy: Adapting to peer population: One way is to observe the value of P(m). Set a target value, say P m = 0.3 When a peer finds the average of P(m) to be less than P m the peer increases m, else the peer decreases m Simulation: Initial value of m is 10. Calculate average of P(m) for 20 time slots and then set new value of m. Initially M = 100 and every 100 time slots add another 100 peers (with empty buffers). 30

Optimizing the Mixed Strategy: Adjust m so that p(m) achieves a target probability (e.g. 0.3) In simulation study, 100 new peers arrive every 100 slots m adapts to a larger value as population increases How to adapt m for the mixed strategy Mixed RF