1. Performance Analysis of Home Streaming Video Using Orb Rabin Karki, Thangam Seenivasan, Mark Claypool and Robert Kinicki Worcester Polytechnic Institute Presented By: Rabin Karki 27 May, 2010

2. Introduction Video streaming largest fraction of Web- based traffic to homes [cite] New trend - users streaming video from home to Internet Needs: –Understand how available bandwidth determined –Measure bandwidth use of new systems –Ascertain video quality 2

3. Introduction Orb – free video streaming system from home to the Internet Features –MyCast service –Instant access to photos, music, videos, television, and other digital content on PC –Access anytime and from any Internet- connected device Launched in 2005, now 7+ million users 3

4. Overview Introduction Goals Experiments Results Conclusions 4

5. Goals Ascertain how Orb determines bandwidth available for streaming Measure Orb network traffic under different bandwidth constraints Investigate video performance at streaming client Understand resource usage at streaming host 5

6. Overview Introduction Goals Experiments Results Conclusions 6

7. Orb – Streaming Modes 7

8. Experiments – Setup Orb Server WPI LAN Host PC Router Client PC Internet Direct streaming Uplink Bandwidth estimation Downlink Bandwidth estimation Direct streaming 8 Host and Client PC Windows XP running Orb Router Linux with Netem Network Direct streaming Tools Wireshark and MediaTracker

9. Experiments – Videos Used 9 Encode: Windows Streaming Media, low quality 320x240, 768 kbps, 25 fps Windows Streaming Media, high quality 1280x720, 1546 kbps, 25 fps Flash Video 320x214, 320 kbps Source: Documentary, High def,.mov video, 150 seconds

10. Overview Introduction Goals Experiments Results Conclusions 10

11. Low Quality Video: Frame Rate 11 Lower frame rate suggests coarse scaling 250 ends later

12. Low Quality Video: Bit rate 12 Different encoding levels suggest quality scaling. Extremely low bitrate at 250 kbps

13. Low Quality Video: Bandwidth 13 Video streamed just below available b/w (except 250 kbps)

14. High Quality Video: Frame rate 14 Frame rates similar to low quality video.

15. High Quality Video: Bit rate 15 Bitrates different than low quality When buffer progress is 100% for some time, bit rate is doubled. If buffer progress doesn’t improve, bit rate is reduced.

16. High Quality Video: Bandwidth 16 Bandwidth used more closely follows the bandwidth settings than do the encoded bitrates.

17. Host Load 17

18. Overview Introduction Goals Experiments Results Conclusions 18

19. Conclusions Bit rate adapts to capacity constraints using TCP Temporal and quality scaling –Temporal scaling coarse –Quality scaling smoother for low-quality video Transcoding in real-time –Resource intensive for streaming host 19

20. Future work Other devices Indirect streaming Other network settings 20

21. Thank you! Questions? 21