p2p10 Slides

QoE in Pull Based P2P-TV Systems: Overlay Topology Design Tradeos
R. Fortuna, E. Leonardi, M. Mellia, M. Meo, S. Traverso

IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing
August 2010
S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)
Overlay Topology Design Tradeos
August 2010
Outline
Outline
August 2010
1 / 29
Outline
Outline
1
Introduction Motivations Denitions Overlay Topology Design The Strategy Chunk Signaling and Scheduling Performance Evaluation Model
Network Scenario Video Parameters
Results
3
Video-Aware Schedulers The Strategy Results Conclusions Q&A

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos August 2010 2 / 29
4 5
Introduction
Introduction
August 2010
3 / 29
Introduction
Motivations
Why this work?

P2P-TV is a promising technology to reduce the cost of streaming content over the Internet, while oering a world-wide service... ... but many issues about how to improve the user perceived video quality are still open. The Network-Aware P2P-TV Application over Wise Networks FP7 project aims at developing an application to broadcast high denition video. We focused our attention on i) the design of the overlay topology, i.e. the network built by peers at application layer; ii) exploiting properties of encoded videostream to improve users QoE.
August 2010
4 / 29
Introduction
Motivations
Why this work?

P2P-TV is a promising technology to reduce the cost of streaming content over the Internet, while oering a world-wide service... ... but many issues about how to improve the user perceived video quality are still open. The Network-Aware P2P-TV Application over Wise Networks FP7 project aims at developing an application to broadcast high denition video. We focused our attention on i) the design of the overlay topology, i.e. the network built by peers at application layer; ii) exploiting properties of encoded videostream to improve users QoE.
August 2010
4 / 29
Introduction
Denitions
Basic concepts
A source peer splits the video streams in small chunks that are injected inside the overlay. Peers start exchanging chunks according to some scheduling scheme. Chunks are exchanged among peers that are neighbors of each others. P2P streaming systems, dierently from le sharing, have to face with the real-time constraint!
Every chunk must be received within a deadline Dmax also called playout delay.
August 2010
5 / 29
Introduction
Denitions
Assumptions
Peers are Internet nodes and tipically their upload bandwidth is much lower than the downlink one. Peers upload bandwidth and latencies between peers are supposed to be known somehow. We neglect the eect of churning since scheduling dynamics are much faster. Peers exchange signaling information to trade chunks.
August 2010
6 / 29
Introduction
Denitions
Assumptions
August 2010
6 / 29
Introduction
Denitions
Assumptions
August 2010
6 / 29
Introduction
Denitions
Assumptions
August 2010
6 / 29
Overlay Topology Design
August 2010
7 / 29
The Strategy
Intuition
To avoid long trading phases, peers with short end-to-end latencies should be connected to each other. To speed up chunk replication, high bandwidth peers should be well connected to each other (to the source). The number of neighbors of a peer have to choose, should be related to its upload bandwidth.
August 2010
8 / 29
The Strategy
Intuition
August 2010
8 / 29
The Strategy
Intuition
August 2010
8 / 29
The Strategy
The Strategy
How many neighbors?
Being Kp the number of neighbors of a peer p chooses, we set Kp = max (3, 10 Bp /rs ) where Bp is the upload bandwidth of peer and rs is the average video rate of the stream.
How to choose neighbors?

Given peer p , all peers q such that Bq > 1/2Bp and lpq < 1/2E [lpq ] are marked as desired peers. Given the size of Kp , Kp peers are randomly selected and (1 )Kp peers are selected within a set of desired peers of p.
The neighborood size

The resulting size of the neighborood of a peer is Cp > Kp (edges are bidirectional).
S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino) Overlay Topology Design Tradeos August 2010 9 / 29
Chunk Signaling and Scheduling
A pull mechanism
Every peer periodically generates oer messages to publish the list of its useful chunks. Neighbors reply to each oer with a select message in which they specify the chunk they need. Once the select message is received, the chunk is then transmitted. When the chunk is received, an acknoledgement message is sent back to the trasmitter.
P5 P2
OFFERS SELECTS
P1 P2 Np
P7
OFFERS
P4
SELECTS
Np
Chunk #1 to Peer 2
time
Chunk #1 to Peer 5 Chunk #2 to Peer 1 Chunk #2 to Peer 2 Chunk #2 to Peer 7 Chunk #3 to Peer 4
August 2010
10 / 29
Chunk Signaling and Scheduling
Peer and Chunk Selections
The Peer Selection

Np neighbors are contacted by a peer in every oer session. Np is a fraction of the total neighborood Cp . In our tests, neighbors to contact with oer messages are chosen uniformly at random.
The Chunk Selection

Chunks requested in select messages are randomly chosen over the the list of useful ones proposed in oer messages. This is commonly known as Random Peer, Random Useful Chunk scheduling policy.
August 2010
11 / 29
Performance Evaluation Model
Nework Scenario
Our simulation involved 2000 peers partitioned in four classes according to their upload capacity: Class 1: 5.0Mb/s 10%; Class 2: 1.6Mb/s 10%; Class 3: 0.64Mb/s 10%; Class 4: 0Mb/s. We consider 4 scenarios, with increasing heterogeneity. The average upload bandwidth is E [Bp ] = 1.3Mb/s in all cases. Class H = 0.01 H = 0.05 H = 0.10 H = 0.15
1 1 5 10 15
2 76.7 58.5 35.8 13.2
3 2.3 16.5 34.2 51.8
4 20 20 20 20
August 2010 12 / 29
The Transport Network

The transport network introduces a latency lpq to all the datagrams sent from peer p to q . Peers are distributed over the Earth surface and scattered over domains representing continents. Then, latencies are proportional to the geodetical distance between peers.
80 60 Latitude [Deg] 40 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Longitude [Deg] 100 150 PDF 20 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0.05
0.1
0.15 0.2 Latency [s]
0.25
0.3
0.35
Figure: Peers distribution over Earth surface.

Figure: Latency frequencies, E [lpq ] = 96ms.

August 2010 13 / 29
Real video sequences

Three well-known video sequences have been considered as benchmarks. Length 40s 33.3s 40s Spatial Res. 352 240 352 288 352 288 Frame/sec 25 30 25
Pink of the Aerosmith Paris Foreman
The videos consists of 1000 frames 40s of visualization. H.264/AVC codec has been adopted for encoding sequences. Hierarchical structure of GOP: frames can be IDR, P, B or b. Intra frames (IDR) carry valuable information (bigger), inter frames (P,B or b) carry dierential information (and are much smaller).
August 2010
14 / 29
Results
The Impact of
45 40 PSNR [dB] 35 30 25 EVQ Dmax=6s Dmax=5s
Dmax=4s Dmax=3s 1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Average PSNR for dierent values of for = 0.9 ( = E [Bp ]/rs ).

Results
The Impact of II
80 60 Latitude [Deg] Latitude [Deg] 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Longitude [Deg] 100 150 80 60 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Longitude [Deg] 100 150 Latitude [Deg] 40 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Longitude [Deg] 100 150
Figure: = 0.0
Figure: = 0.1
Figure: = 1.0
August 2010
16 / 29
Results
The Impact of II
80 60 Latitude [Deg] Latitude [Deg] 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Longitude [Deg] 100 150 80 60 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Longitude [Deg] 100 150 Latitude [Deg] 40 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Longitude [Deg] 100 150
Figure: = 0.0
46 44 PSNR [dB] 42 40 38 36
Figure: = 0.1
Figure: = 1.0
EVQ =0.0 Dmax=5s =0.1 Dmax=5s =1.0 Dmax=5s 1 6 11 16 21 26 Peers ID 31 36 41
= 0.0 can lead to disconnected topologies!

Results
Adapting Kp to the upload capacity
45 40 PSNR [dB] 35 30 25 EVQ Dmax=6s Dmax=5s PSNR [dB] Dmax=4s Dmax=3s 1
45 40 35 30 25 EVQ Dmax=6s Dmax=5s
Dmax=4s Dmax=3s 1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Fixed Kp = 20 (left) and variable Kp = max (3, 10 Bp /rs ) (right) for = 0.9.
August 2010
17 / 29
Results
Network stress
0.1 0.09 Network stress [ms] 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0 0.2 0.4 Dmax=3s Dmax=4s Dmax=5s Dmax=6s 0.6 0.8 1
Figure: The network stress index, i.e. the average distance covered by chunks expressed it terms of the corresponding latency ( = 0.9).
Results
Robustness
46 45.5 45 PSNR [dB] 44.5 44 43.5 43 42.5 42 41.5 41 0.025
PSNR [dB]
H=0.01 H=0.05 H=0.10 H=0.15 EVQ
45 40 35 30 25 Paris Foreman Pink Paris EVQ Foreman EVQ Pink EVQ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.22
0.415
0.61
0.805
Figure: Average PSNR versus for Figure: Average PSNR versus for dierent degrees of heterogeneity H with dierent video sequences with = 0.9, H = 0.10 and variable Kp . Dmax = 5s and = 0.9.
August 2010
19 / 29
Video-Aware Schedulers
August 2010
20 / 29
Dierent frame types and losses

55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 PSNR [dB]
10
15
20 25 Time [s]
30
35
40
55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15
PSNR [dB]
10
15
20 25 Time [s]
30
35
40
Figure: PSNR variation of a random peer versus time. = 0.6 (rs = 780kb/s, top) and = 1.0 (rs = 1290kb/s, bottom).
The Strategy
Improving chunk selection

Dierent frame types have dierent importance in a video stream. A frame loss may cause very dierent levels of degradation of the reconstructed video quality:
missing an IDR frame impairs the video decoding until the next IDR; missing a b frame impairs only the decoding of one single frame.
We can assign priority to chunks transporting precious frames. To avoid chopping frames into several chunks, we set one frame per chunk. Priority is assigned to frames based on the amount of degradation they might induce if lost: q is the number of subsequent frames that would be aected by the lost of that frame. A weight q is given to every chunk encapsulating a frame. With > 0 we assign a larger weight to more important frames.
The Strategy
Improving chunk selection

Dierent frame types have dierent importance in a video stream. A frame loss may cause very dierent levels of degradation of the reconstructed video quality:
missing an IDR frame impairs the video decoding until the next IDR; missing a b frame impairs only the decoding of one single frame.
We can assign priority to chunks transporting precious frames. To avoid chopping frames into several chunks, we set one frame per chunk. Priority is assigned to frames based on the amount of degradation they might induce if lost: q is the number of subsequent frames that would be aected by the lost of that frame. A weight q is given to every chunk encapsulating a frame. With > 0 we assign a larger weight to more important frames.
Results
Slight Improvements
42 Pink 40 PSNR [dB] 38 36 34 32 5 10 15 20 25 PeerID =0.0 =0.5 =1.0 =2.0 30 35 40 45
Figure: PSNR for dierent peers and values of with = 1.1, Dmax = 5s and H = 0.10. Pink by Aerosmith video sequence.
Results
Slight Improvements II
40 38 36 PSNR [dB] 34 32 30 28 26 5 10 15 20 25 PeerID =0.0 =0.5 =1.0 =2.0 30 35 40 45 Paris
Figure: PSNR for dierent peers and values of with = 1.1, Dmax = 5s and H = 0.10. Paris video sequence.
Results
Slight Improvements III

38 36 PSNR [dB] 34 32 30 28 26 5 10 15 20 25 PeerID =0.0 =0.5 =1.0 =2.0 30 35 40 45 Foreman
Figure: PSNR for dierent peers and values of with = 1.1, Dmax = 5s and H = 0.10. Foreman video sequence.
Conclusions
Conclusions
August 2010
26 / 29
Conclusions
Conclusions
We provided guidelines for the design of the overlay topology and the chunk scheduling algorithm. By carefully designing the overlay topology we can partially localize the trac and improve the user QoE. By prioritizing chunks that encapsulate valuable pieces of information at the scheduler level, system performance can be slightly improved in overloaded conditions.
August 2010
27 / 29
Conclusions
Conclusions
August 2010
27 / 29
Conclusions
Conclusions
August 2010
27 / 29
Q&A
Q&A
August 2010
28 / 29
Q&A
Thank you for your attention!
August 2010
29 / 29

p2p10 Slides

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

p2p10 Slides

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QoE in Pull Based P2P-TV Systems: Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

R. Fortuna, E. Leonardi, M. Mellia, M. Meo, S. Traverso

S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

Video-Aware Schedulers The Strategy Results Conclusions Q&A

S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)

S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

Why this work?

S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

Why this work?

S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

Overlay Topology Design

Overlay Topology Design

S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

Overlay Topology Design

S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

Overlay Topology Design

S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

Overlay Topology Design

S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

Overlay Topology Design

How to choose neighbors?

The neighborood size

Overlay Topology Design

Chunk Signaling and Scheduling

S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

Overlay Topology Design

Chunk Signaling and Scheduling

Peer and Chunk Selections

The Peer Selection

The Chunk Selection

S. Traverso (Politecnico di Torino)

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

Overlay Topology Design

Performance Evaluation Model

2 76.7 58.5 35.8 13.2

3 2.3 16.5 34.2 51.8

Overlay Topology Design Tradeos

Overlay Topology Design

Performance Evaluation Model

The Transport Network

0.15 0.2 Latency [s]

Figure: Peers distribution over Earth surface.

Figure: Latency frequencies, E [lpq ] = 96ms.