Scheduling Techniques for Media-on-Demand Amotz Bar-Noy Brooklyn College Richard Ladner Tami Tamir University of Washington.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Class-constrained Resource Allocation Problems Tami Tamir Thesis advisor: Hadas Shachnai.
Advertisements

Tight Bounds for Online Class- constrained Packing Hadas Shachnai Bell Labs and The Technion IIT Tami Tamir The Technion IIT.
Class-constrained Packing Problems with Application to Storage Management in Multimedia Systems Tami Tamir Department of Computer Science The Technion.
On Large-Scale Peer-to-Peer Streaming Systems with Network Coding Chen Feng, Baochun Li Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Toronto.
Multimedia Systems As Presented by: Craig Tomastik.
Optimization of Data Caching and Streaming Media Kristin Martin November 24, 2008.
Slice–and–Patch An Algorithm to Support VBR Video Streaming in a Multicast– based Video–on–Demand System.
1 Better Scalable Algorithms for Broadcast Scheduling Ravishankar Krishnaswamy Carnegie Mellon University Joint work with Nikhil Bansal and Viswanath Nagarajan.
Windows Scheduling Problems for Broadcast System 1 Amotz Bar-Noy, and Richard E. Ladner Presented by Qiaosheng Shi.
June 3, 2015Windows Scheduling Problems for Broadcast System 1 Amotz Bar-Noy, and Richard E. Ladner Presented by Qiaosheng Shi.
Algorithmic Complexity Nelson Padua-Perez Bill Pugh Department of Computer Science University of Maryland, College Park.
Harmonic Broadcasting for Video-on- Demand Service Enhanced Harmonic Data Broadcasting And Receiving Scheme For Popular Video Service Li-Shen Juhn and.
1 A Comparative Study of Periodic Broadcasting Scheme for Large-Scale Video Streaming Prepared by Nera Liu.
Peer-to-peer Multimedia Streaming and Caching Service Jie WEI, Zhen MA May. 29.
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.
1 Staleness vs.Waiting time in Universal Discrete Broadcast Michael Langberg California Institute of Technology Joint work with Jehoshua Bruck and Alex.
Scalable and Continuous Media Streaming on Peer-to-Peer Networks M. Sasabe, N. Wakamiya, M. Murata, H. Miyahara Osaka University, Japan Presented By Tsz.
Data Broadcast in Asymmetric Wireless Environments Nitin H. Vaidya Sohail Hameed.
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.
An adaptive video multicast scheme for varying workloads Kien A.Hua, JungHwan Oh, Khanh Vu Multimedia Systems, Springer-Verlag 2002.
Seamless Channel Transition for Pyramid- based Near-VOD Services Student: Wei-De Chien Advisor: Prof. Ja-Shung Wang.
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.
HHMSM: A Hierarchical Hybrid Multicast Stream Merging Scheme For Large-Scale Video-On-Demand Systems Hai Jin and Dafu Deng Huazhong University of Science.
Guaranteed Smooth Scheduling in Packet Switches Isaac Keslassy (Stanford University), Murali Kodialam, T.V. Lakshman, Dimitri Stiliadis (Bell-Labs)
Dean H. Lorenz, Danny Raz Operations Research Letter, Vol. 28, No
A Fixed-Delay Broadcasting Protocol for Video-on-Demand Jehan-Francois Paris Department of Computer Science University of Houston A Channel-Based Heuristic.
Smooth Workload Adaptive Broadcast Yang Guo, Lixin Gao Don Towsley, Subhabrata Sen IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MULTIMEDIA, APRIL 2004.
Multicast with Cache (Mcache): An Adaptive Zero-Delay Video-on-Demand Service Sridhar Ramesh, Injong Rhee, and Katherine Guo INFOCOM 2001.
Adaptive Rate Control for Streaming Stored Fine- Grained Scalable Video Philippe de Cuetos, Keith W. Ross NOSSDAV 2002, May 12-14,2002.
High-Performance Prefetching Protocols for VBR Prerecorded Video 윤 지 숙 Martin Reisslein, Keith Ross.
Online Packet Switching Techniques and algorithms Yossi Azar Tel Aviv University.
A General Approach to Online Network Optimization Problems Seffi Naor Computer Science Dept. Technion Haifa, Israel Joint work: Noga Alon, Yossi Azar,
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,
Schemes for Video on demand Yuan-Shiang Yeh. Outline Introduction Previous Works Study Buffer Requirement Channel Adjustment Bandwidth reduction in multi-layer.
CS Spring 2012 CS 414 – Multimedia Systems Design Lecture 34 – Media Server (Part 3) Klara Nahrstedt Spring 2012.
A Model for Minimizing Active Processor Time Jessica Chang Joint work with Hal Gabow and Samir Khuller.
Minimizing Flow Time on Multiple Machines Nikhil Bansal IBM Research, T.J. Watson.
Minimizing Makespan and Preemption Costs on a System of Uniform Machines Hadas Shachnai Bell Labs and The Technion IIT Tami Tamir Univ. of Washington Gerhard.
Package Transportation Scheduling Albert Lee Robert Z. Lee.
Dynamic and Decentralized Approaches for Optimal Allocation of Multiple Resources in Virtualized Data Centers Wei Chen, Samuel Hargrove, Heh Miao, Liang.
Scalable On-Demand Media Streaming with Packet Loss Recovery A. Mahanti, D. L. Eager, (USask) M. K. Vernon, D S-Stukel (Wisc) Presented by Cheng Huang.
Ali Saman Tosun Computer Science Department
Approximation schemes Bin packing problem. Bin Packing problem Given n items with sizes a 1,…,a n  (0,1]. Find a packing in unit-sized bins that minimizes.
1 Server Scheduling in the L p norm Nikhil Bansal (CMU) Kirk Pruhs (Univ. of Pittsburgh)
A Maiden Analysis of Longest Wait First Jeff Edmonds York University Kirk Pruhs University of Pittsburgh.
November 4, 2003APOC 2003 Wuhan, China 1/14 Demand Based Bandwidth Assignment MAC Protocol for Wireless LANs Presented by Ruibiao Qiu Department of Computer.
Node-based Scheduling with Provable Evacuation Time Bo Ji Dept. of Computer & Information Sciences Temple University Joint work.
Competitive Queue Policies for Differentiated Services Seminar in Packet Networks1 Competitive Queue Policies for Differentiated Services William.
Guaranteed Smooth Scheduling in Packet Switches Isaac Keslassy (Stanford University), Murali Kodialam, T.V. Lakshman, Dimitri Stiliadis (Bell-Labs)
A simple model for analyzing P2P streaming protocols. Seminar on advanced Internet applications and systems Amit Farkash. 1.
Simulation case studies J.-F. Pâris University of Houston.
The Analysis of Optimal Stream Merging Solutions for Media-on- Demand Amotz Bar-Noy CUNY and Brooklyn College Richard Ladner University of Washington.
Minimizing Delay in Shared Pipelines Ori Rottenstreich (Technion, Israel) Joint work with Isaac Keslassy (Technion, Israel) Yoram Revah, Aviran Kadosh.
1 Windows Scheduling as a Restricted Version of Bin-packing. Amotz Bar-Noy Brooklyn College Richard Ladner Tami Tamir University of Washington.
CPET 565 Mobile Computing Systems Data Dissemination and Management (2) Lecture 8 Hongli Luo Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.
Mok & friends. Resource partition for real- time systems (RTAS 2001)
Large-Scale and Cost-Effective Video Services CS587x Lecture Department of Computer Science Iowa State University.
Scalable video distribution techniques Laurentiu Barza PLANETE project presentation: Sophia Antipolis 12 October 2000.
1 Scheduling Techniques for Broadcasting Popular Media. Amotz Bar-Noy Brooklyn College Richard Ladner Tami Tamir University of Washington.
Feb 5, ECET 581/CPET/ECET 499 Mobile Computing Technologies & Apps Data Dissemination and Management 3 of 4 Lecture 8 Paul I-Hai Lin, Professor Electrical.
Agenda Background Project goals Project description –General –Implementation –Algorithms Simulation results –Charts –Conclusions.
Chapter 20: Multimedia Systems
Distribution – Part I 6/10 – 2003
Video on Demand (VoD) March, 2003
Data Dissemination and Management (2) Lecture 10
Video On Demand.
Chapter 20: Multimedia Systems
Chapter 20: Multimedia Systems
Data Dissemination and Management (2) Lecture 10
Presentation transcript:

Scheduling Techniques for Media-on-Demand Amotz Bar-Noy Brooklyn College Richard Ladner Tami Tamir University of Washington

2 Multimedia-on-Demand Systems  A database of media objects (movies).  A limited number of channels.  Movies are broadcast based on customer demand.  The goal: Minimizing clients’ maximal waiting time (delay).  Broadcasting schemes: For popular movies, the system does not wait for client requests, but broadcasts these movies continuously.

3 Broadcasting Schemes for Media-on-Demand Systems. A server broadcasting movies of unit-length on h channels. Each channel transmits data at the playback rate. A client that wishes to watch a movie is ‘listening to all the channels’ and is waiting for his movie to start.

4 Example: One Movie, Two Channels Staggered broadcasting, [ Dan, Sitaram, Shahabuddin, 96 ]: Transmit the movie repeatedly on each of the channels. Guaranteed client delay: at most 1/2 (1/h in general). A clue: With today’s advanced technology, clients can buffer data to their local machine. 0 1/2 1 3/2 2 5/2 3 C1:C1: C2:C2: Can we do better? … …

5 Using Client’s Buffer [ Viswanathan, Imielinski, 96 ]: Partition the movie into segments. Early segments are transmitted more frequently. The client waits for the next slot start, and can then start watching the movie without interruptions. Maximal client delay: 1/3 (slot size). 132 (3 segments) Each time-slot has length 1/3. arrive watch & buffer 0 1/3 2/3 1 4/3 5/3 2 C1:C1: C2:C2: … …

6 Using Client’s Buffer, The General Case: The movie is partitioned into s segments, 1,..,s. We schedule these segments such that segment i is transmitted in any window of i slots (i-window). The client has segment i available on time (from his buffer or from the channels). The maximal delay: one slot = 1/s. Therefore, the goal is to maximize s for given h. 444 …

7 Harmonic Window Scheduling Given h, maximize s such that each i in 1,..,s is scheduled with window at most i. Can other techniques do better? Match a lower bound? In general, window scheduling is NP-hard [ Bay-Noy, Bhatia, Naor, Schieber, 98 ]. Good harmonic schedules can be found greedily [ Bar-Noy, Ladner, 02 ] … … … C1C1 C2C2 C3C3 111 … C1C1 Examples: h=1, s=1, D=1 C1C C2C2 … … h=2, s=3. D=1/3 h=3, s=9. D=1/9

8 Our Results  Two new segment-scheduling techniques: - Shifting. - Channel sharing.  A lower bound for the guaranteed client’s delay (generalizes the lower bound of [Engebretsen, Sudan, 02] for a single movie).  Each of the two techniques produce schedules which - Approach the lower bound for any number of channels. - Guarantee the minimal known delay for small number of segments.  The two techniques can be applied together.

9 delay The Shifting Technique: The movie is partitioned into s segments, 1,..,s. We find a schedule of these segments in h channels such that segment i is transmitted in any window of d+i-1 slots (d is the shifting level).  The 1 st segment has window d.  The 2 nd segment has window d+1, etc. The client waits for the next slot start, buffers data during the next d-1 slots, and then start watching the movie (while continue buffering). arrive buffer watch & buffer d-1 slots s slots The total delay is at most d slots

10 Example I: One Movie, Two Channels Without shifting, the best schedule has delay 1/ C1:C1: C2:C2: C1:C1: C2:C2: With shifting, we can schedule 8 segments 1..8, such that segment i is transmitted in any i+1 window (d=2). … … … … The resulting delay is 2/8 = 1/4.

11 Example I: One Movie, Two Channels For a client arriving during the second slot: C1:C1: C2:C2: arrive buffer watch & buffer tttttttttt Client’s buffer Client watches … …

12 Example II: One Movie, One Channel Without shifting, even if the client can buffer data, a maximal 1-delay is inevitable The first segment is transmitted every 4 th slotThe second segment is transmitted every 4 th slot The third, fourth, and fifth segments are transmitted every 6 th slot. We broadcast segment i in any i+3 (or smaller) window With shifting (d=4): We partition the movie into 5 segments. The resulting delay: at most 4 slots = 4/5. arrive buffer watch & buffer …

13 Asymptotic Results How far can we go with this technique? What happens when d is very large? Answer: Asymptotically, this is an optimal scheme. Proof: Based on Recursive Round Robin (RRR) schedules.

14 Asymptotic Results (cont’) Lower bound [ Engebretsen, Sudan, 02 ]: The guarantied delay for one movie and h channels is at least Theorem: For h  1, there is a constant c h, such that shifting produces a schedule with maximal delay at most Proof : Given h,d, we find an RRR schedule on h channels of segments 1,..,s with shift level d, such that s is large enough to satisfy the theorem. (D LB (1)= 0.58).

15 We simulate our RRR scheduling algorithm. 30% different from the lower bound for s=8. 13% different from the lower bound for s=120 (one-minute segments in an average movie). Number of segments delay Lower bound =0.58 Simulation Results for h=1

16 The Channel Sharing Technique for Multiple Movies The idea: We can gain from transmitting segments of different movies on the same channel. Example: For three channels and one movie the best harmonic schedule is of nine segments (delay = 1/9). For six channels and two movies, we have a double- harmonic schedule of ten segments (delay =1/10). Why does it work? more segments can be transmitted with window close to their requirement. 2a2b4a 9a8a4b 8b9b With two movies: …… With one movie: …

17 Asymptotic Results How far can we go with this technique? What happens when the number of movies, m, is very large? Answer: Asymptotically, this is an optimal scheme. Lower bound: The guaranteed delay for m movies and h channels is at least Proof: An algorithm that produces an RRR schedule. Theorem: For h,m  1, there is a constant c h,m, such that there exists a schedule with guaranteed delay at most

18 Combining Techniques The shifting and the channel sharing techniques can be applied together. For small values of h,s, and m, we present schedules that achieve the smallest known delay. Asymptotically, we are getting closer to the lower bound much faster – to show this we analyze and simulate two simple RRR-schedules.

19 Other Models Our shifting and channel sharing techniques can be used also: To reduce average client delay. In the receive-r model - where clients have limited number of readers. For movies with different lengths. For movies with different popularity/priority (where the desired maximal delay varies). For all these models we have examples of the efficiency of shifting and/or sharing. We have no general algorithm or asymptotic analysis. and Open Problems