1. ENSC 427: COMMUNICATION NETWORKS SPRING 2018
FINAL PROJECT PRESENTATIONS Comparison of gaming Client/Server paradigms: Peer hosting vs Dedicated Server
Randeep Shahi ( ) Nathan Zavaglia ( )
Team 2

2. Outline Introduction Overview of Related work Problem Description
Implementation
Results
Discussion
References

3. Outline Introduction Overview of Related work Problem Description
Implementation
Results
Discussion
References

4. Introduction
Networking in video games has been a huge influence in the way that video game connectivity has evolved
Since the introduction of early games
Most games were client-server based
Recently they have become more peer-to-peer based.
We wanted to investigate the differences between a client-server based network paradigm vs a peer-to-peer network paradigm

5. Overview of Related work
Client-Server model most prevalent (Yahyavi and Kemme) [1]
Peer-to-Peer can be scalable to large numbers (Knutsson, Honghui Wei and Hopkins) [3]
Acceptable delay for MMO but not for fast paced games
No need to maintain dedicated servers – P2P is lower cost
Not much new research
Few simulations
Most research dated
Using non-standard/custom tools

6. Problem Description
Our goal was to simulate 2 different paradigms of network connectivity
Standalone/dedicated servers
Peer-to-peer networks
Metrics are global ping, local ping, jitter, and packet loss
Logical topologies

7. Outline Introduction Overview of Related work Problem Description
Implementation
Results
Discussion
References

8. Implementation
We implemented our simulation using Riverbed Modeler 17.5
Originally proposed to use ns3
Found that riverbed was easier to use for our purposes
Our simulations were a variation of our 2 main paradigms(client- server or peer-to-peer)
These variations were
Normal (no adding or dropping)
Client joins 
And Client Leaves

9. Implementation…continued
For each simulation
Each client connected to the server about 15 to 115 seconds into the simulation
Each simulation lasted 30+ minutes of simulated time (simulation time was 35 seconds)
Each scenario had 8 clients
Simulated on a LAN for simplicity (links are 100baseT duplex ethernet links)

10. Implementation…continued
UDP packets were sent between the clients (and server)
Packets sent from clients were 100 bytes each.
Increased from 80 bytes as referenced in [4] in order to better saturate network
Packets received by clients were 100 bytes for simplicity
Clients connected to routers with DS3_PPP links
Router to Router/server are connected by 100baseT links

11. Implementation con’t…
Diagram of client server model

12. Implementation con’t…
Diagram of peer-to-peer network

13. Outline Introduction Overview of Related work Problem Description
Implementation
Results
Discussion
References

14. Results (delay) This was the baseline that we will compare against
Ping ranges between seconds to seconds
Curve started to level off as the simulation ended

15. Results (delay)
3 clients drop out of the sim at 10 minutes, 20 minutes, and 30 minutes
As the clients drop out, the ping for the first 3 clients drops a marginal amount ranging from 0.22 seconds to 0.19 seconds
Unknown as to where the simulation would have leveled out; hit academic license limit of 50 million events per simulation.

16. Results (delay)
3 clients are added to the simulation at 10 minutes, 20 minutes, and 30 minutes
As the clients are removed , the average number of dropped packets though the internet begins to increase as more clients are added
Unknown as to where the simulation would have leveled out; hit academic license limit of 50 million events per simulation.

17. Results (jitter) This was the baseline that we will compare against
Jitter for all 3 clients was about seconds
Curves level off before simulation ends

18. Results (jitter)
3 clients drop out of the sim at 10 minutes, 20 minutes, and 30 minutes
No noticeable changes were observed from baseline
Curves level off before simulation ends

19. Results (jitter)
3 clients join the sim at 10 minutes, 20 minutes, and 30 minutes
No noticeable changes were observed from baseline
Curves level off before simulation ends

20. Outline Introduction Overview of Related work Problem Description
Implementation
Results
Discussion
References

21. Discussion
According to our simulation, Clients joining a p2p network has a definite impact on the ping but has a negligible impact on jitter
Future works:
P2p and client-server delay analysis
P2p and client-server in-depth packet loss
Modifications to p2p physical topology

22. References
[1 ] A. Yahyavi and B. Kemme, “Peer-to-peer architectures for massively multiplayer online games,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 46, no. 1 , pp. 1 –51 , Jan
[2] C. Neumann, N. Prigent, M. Varvello, and K. Suh, “Challenges in peer-to-peer gaming,” SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 37, no. 1 , pp. 79–82, Jan [Online]. Available: /
[3] B. Knutsson, Honghui Lu, Wei Xu and B. Hopkins, "Peer-to-peer support for massively multiplayer games," IEEE INFOCOM 2004, 2004, pp doi: /INFCOM
[4] Johannes Färber Network game traffic modelling. In Proceedings of the 1 st workshop on Network and system support for games (NetGames '02). ACM, New York, NY, USA, doi: /
[5] Y. W. Bernier, “Latency Compensating Methods in Client/Server In-game Protocol Design and Optimization,” Valve Developer Community. [Online]. Available: e_Protocol_Design_and_Optimization. [Accessed: 09-Feb-201 8].