Distributed Computing

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 77–89 | Cite as

Optimal smoothing schedules for real-time streams

Article

Abstract.

We consider the problem of smoothing real-time streams (such as video streams), where the goal is to reproduce a variable-bandwidth stream remotely, while minimizing bandwidth cost, space requirement, and playback delay. We focus on lossy schedules, where data may be dropped due to limited bandwidth or space. We present the following results. First, we determine the optimal tradeoff between buffer space, smoothing delay, and link bandwidth for lossy smoothing schedules. Specifically, this means that if two of these parameters are given, we can precisely calculate the value for the third which minimizes data loss while avoiding resource wastage. The tradeoff is accomplished by a simple generic algorithm, that allows one some freedom in choosing which data to discard. This algorithm is very easy to implement both at the server and at the client, and it enjoys the nice property that only the server decides which data to discard, and the client needs only to reconstruct the stream.

In a second set of results we study the case where different parts of the data have different importance, modeled by assigning a real “weight” to each packet in the stream. For this setting we use competitive analysis, i.e., we compare the weight delivered by on-line algorithms to the weight of an optimal off-line schedule using the same resources. We prove that a natural greedy algorithm is 4-competitive. We also prove a lower bound of 1.23 on the competitive ratio of any deterministic on-line algorithm. Finally, we give a few experimental results which seem to indicate that smoothing is very effective in practice, and that the greedy algorithm performs very well in the weighted case.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    www.nmis.org/NewsInteractive/CNN/NewsroomGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    MPEG-1 standard (ISO/IEC 11172), 1992Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    MPEG-2 standard (ISO/IEC DIS 13818), 1994Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borodin A, El-Yaniv R: Online computation and competitive analysis. Cambridge University Press, 1998Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang R-I, Chen M-C, Ho J-M, Ko M-T: An effective and efficient traffic smoothing scheme for delivery of online VBR media streams. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, 1999Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Civanlar M, Cash G, Haskell B: RTP payload format for bundled MPEG, May 1998. Internet RFC 2343.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duffield NG, Ramakrishnan KK, Reibman AR: SAVE: An algorithm for smoothed adaptive video over explicit rate networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 6(6):717-728 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feng W, Rexford J: Performance evaluation of smoothing algorithms for transmitting prerecorded variable-bit-rate video. IEEE Trans. on Multimedia 1(3):302-313 (1999)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grosslauser M, Keshav S, Tse DNC: RCBR: A simple and efficient service for multiple time-scale traffic. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 5(6):741-755 (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ni TYJ, Tsang D: A CBR transport technique for MPEG-2 video-on-demand connections over ATM networks. In: Proc. IEEE ICC 96, pp 1391-1395. June 1996Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jiang Z, Kleinrock L: A general optimal smoothing video algorithm. In: Proc. IEEE INFOCOM. Mar. 1999Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keshav S: An engineering approach to computer networking. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1997Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lam SS, Chow S, Yau DKY: An algorithm for lossless smoothing of MPEG video. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 4(5):697-708 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rexford J, Sen S, Dey J, Feng W, Kurose J, Stankovic J, Towsley D: Online smoothing of live, variable-bit-rate video. In: Proc. International Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video, pp 249-257. May 1997Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rexford J, Towsley D: Smoothing variable-bit-rate video in an internetwork. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, pp 202-215. Apr. 1999Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salehi J, Zhang Z, Kurose J, Towsley D: Supporting stored video: Reducing rate variability and end-to-end resource requirements through optimal smoothing. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 6(4):397-410 (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sen S, Dey J, Kurose J, Stankovic J, Towsley D: CBR transmission of VBR stored video. In: SPIE Symposium on Voice Video and Data Communications, Nov. 1997Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sen S, Rexford J, Towsley D: Proxy prefix caching for multimedia streams. In: Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Mar. 1999Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    The ATM Forum Technical Committee. Traffic management specification version 4.0, Apr. 1996. Available from www.atmforum.comGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wrege DE, Knightly EW, Zhang H, Liebeherr J: Deterministic delay bounds for VBR video in packet-switching networks: fundamental limits and practical trade-offs. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 4(3):352-362 (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang H: Service disciplines for guaranteed performance service in packet-switched networks. Proceedings of the IEEE 83(10) (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang Z-L, Nelakuditi S, Aggarwal R, Tsang RP: Efficient selective frame discard algorithms for stored video delivery across resource constrained networks. In: Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Mar. 1999Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhao W, Seth T, Kim M, Willebeek-LeMair M: Optimal bandwidth/delay tradeoff for feasible-region-based scalable multimedia scheduling. In: Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 98, 1998Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin/Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Deptartment of Electrical EngineeringTel-Aviv UniversityTel-Aviv Israel

Personalised recommendations