Efficient Sub-Stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
efficient sub stream encoding and transmission for p2p
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Efficient Sub-Stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 13, 2023 160 likes •353 views

Efficient Sub-Stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand Zhengye Liu Yanming Shen Shivendra S. Panwar Keith W. Ross Yao Wang Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, NY, USA Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

1

Efficient Sub-Stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

Zhengye Liu Yanming Shen Shivendra S. Panwar Keith W. Ross Yao Wang Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, NY, USA

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

2

Outline

  • Motivation
  • P2P VoD system
  • Sub-stream encoding and transmission
  • Simulations
  • Conclusion
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

3

Motivation

  • Video-on-demand services

– Youtube, MSN video, google video,… – Content distribution networks (CDNs)

  • P2P live streaming systems

– PPLive, PPStream, UUSee, Coolstreaming,… – Support thousands of users simultaneously

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

4

P2P VoD System

  • Multiple video architecture

– Extension of CDNs: Peers act as video servers – Contribute storage in addition to bandwidth – Help each other with stored videos

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

5

Proposed System with Multiple Sub-Streams

In this illustration, two simultaneous streaming sessions are requested from nodes 4 and 5. The system initially selects nodes 2 and 3 to serve node 4’s request, and selects nodes 4 and 1 to serve node 5’s request. After Node 2 goes down, the system finds node 6 as a replacement

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

6

Benefit of Using Layered Coding/MDC

  • Adaptive to the long-term bandwidth

fluctuation due to peer churn

– Uplink bandwidth fluctuation – Received video quality adapts to the available uplink bandwidth

  • Robust to peer failure/disconnection

– One supplier failure only affects one/several sub- stream(s) – Video quality will not be impaired seriously

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

7

Multi-Stream Coding Schemes

(a) Layered coding (b) MDC (c) Ideal scheme

– Compare schemes (a), (b) – Design (c)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

8

Push-Pull Delivery with Layered Coding

  • Store all layers of a video
  • Push-pull for layer delivery
  • Storage consumed for one video: RM
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

9

The Ideal Scheme should consume minimum storage

  • Can we reduce the consumed storage?
  • The minimum storage: R+R/2+,…,+R/M≈ R ln(M)
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

10

RS Coding

RS (8,2) coding for Layer 2 Any two received chunks can recover the original two chunks

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

11

RS Coding Instead of Replicating

RS (8,k) coding, k=1,2,3,4

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

12

Redundancy-Free Transmission Based on Push-Pull Architecture

  • A receiver schedules the chunks that should be delivered (Pull)
  • A supplier pushes the chunks based on the schedule (Push)

R

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

13

Features of Proposed Scheme

  • Ideal Scheme

– Equal importance (like MDC) – Redundancy free transmission (like Layered coding)

  • Minimum storage consumed

– R ln(M) vs. RM

  • M=4, 2.08R vs. 4R, save about 50%
  • M=32, 3.47R vs. 32R, save about 89%
  • Since a peer needs to store fewer

substreams: save server bandwidth

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

Simulations

  • Setting

– 3000 peers, different uplink bandwidth – 30 videos, different popularity (Zipf distribution with parameter 0.27)

  • Simulate two video sequences

– Foreman: low rate – Mobile: high rate

  • Compare SLRS, Layered Coding, MD-FEC, RFMD
  • Performance metrics

– Discontinuity: number of undecodable GOPs/Total number of GOPs – PSNR

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

Simulation Results

15

Discontinuity of different schemes

  • vs. number of active users under the “Foreman” sequence

PSNR of different schemes

  • vs. number of active users under the “Foreman” sequence
slide-16
SLIDE 16

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

Simulation Results

16

Discontinuity of different schemes

  • vs. number of active users under the “Mobile” sequence

PSNR of different schemes

  • vs. number of active users under the “Mobile” sequence
slide-17
SLIDE 17

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

17

Conclusion

  • Propose a redundancy-free transmission

scheme based on a push-pull architecture

  • RFMD

– Advantages

  • All substreams have equal importance: graceful quality

degradation

  • Only the source bits are transmitted: no transmission

redundancy

  • Coding instead replication: any combination of M or fewer

substreams can be used in reconstructing video

– Additional cost:

  • Feedback from the client to each supplying peer: feasible

in typical P2P VoD applications

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Efficient Sub-stream Encoding and Transmission for P2P Video on Demand

18

Thanks!