Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 267–297 | Cite as

Periodic broadcast with dynamic server selection

  • Ewa Kusmierek
  • Yingping Lu
  • David H. C. Du


Service replication is an effective way to address resource requirements and resource availability problem. Dynamic service selection enables clients to choose a server offering the best performance. Proper server selection is especially important for video streaming over the Internet due to its high bandwidth requirements. However, given the length of a typical video transmission, the server priorly selected may no longer be an optimal one for the duration of the entire transmission. More importantly, a server may fail during the transmission of a video. In this paper we examine the possibility of switching to another server during an on-going transmission for Periodic Broadcast schemes. Due to the timing requirements typical for Periodic Broadcast the server switch may cause playback disruptions. We analyze the magnitude of the problem and propose an easy to implement solution. We define the criteria, additional to the bandwidth availability for example, according to which a new server should be selected. The client is also required to delay its playback by the amount of time bounded by the server transmission offset. In addition, we propose an alternative method to ensure uninterrupted playback that relies on proxy caching. Simulation results show that our approach can significantly reduce the likelihood of playback disruptions.


Multimedia Periodic broadcast Dynamic server selection Proxy server Video caching 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amini L, Schulzrinne H (2003) On probe strategies for dynamic multimedia server selection. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, vol 1. pp 393–396Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carter RL, Crovella M (1997) Server selection using dynamic path characterization in wide-area networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, number 3, pp 1014–1021Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duffield N, Ramakrishnan K, Reibman A (1999) Save: an algorithm for smoothed adaptive video over explicit rate network. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eager DL, Vernon MK (1998) Dynamic skyscraper broadcasts for video-on-demand. Lect Notes Comput Sci 1508Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fei Z, Bhattacharjee S, Zegura EW, Ammar MH (1998) A novel server selection technique for improving the response time of a replicated service. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, number 2, pp 783–791Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fu Z, Venkatasubramanian N (1999) Combined path and server selection in dynamic multimedia environments. In: Proceedings of ACM Multimedia (1), pp 469–472Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fung C, Liew S (1999) End-to-end frame-rate adaptive streaming of video data. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems, pp 67–71Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gao L, Kurose J, Towsley D (1998) Efficient schemes for broadcasting popular videos. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Network and Operating System Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hu A (2001) Video-on-demand broadcasting protocols: a comprehensive study. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, vol 1. pp 508–517, AprilGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hua KA, Sheu S (1997) Skyscraper broadcasting: a new broadcasting scheme for metropolitan video-on-demand systems. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, pp 89–100Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Juhn L, Tseng L (1997) Harmonic broadcasting for video-on-demand service. IEEE Trans Broadcast 44(3), SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Juhn L, Tseng L (1998) Fast data broadcasting and receiving scheme for popular video service. IEEE Trans Broadcast 44(1):100–105, MarchCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kusmierek E, Du DHC (2004) Proxy-assisted periodic broadcast for video streaming with multiple servers. In: 6th International Workshop on Multimedia Network Systems and Applications (MNSA)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kusmierek E, Du DHC (2004) Streaming video delivery over Internet with adaptive End-to-End QoS. Journal of Systems and Software, Special Issue on Adaptive Multimedia Computing, JulyGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kusmierek E, Lu Y, Du DHC (2004) Periodic broadcast with dynamic server selection. Technical report, Digital Technology Center University of MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lei Z, Georganas ND (2003) Rate adaptation transcoding for video streaming over wireless channels. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and ExpoGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ma W, Du DHC (2002) Reducing bandwidth requirement for delivering video over wide area networks with proxy server. IEEE Trans Multimedia 4(4):539–550, DecemberCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miao Z, Ortega A (2002) Scalable proxy caching of video under storage constraints. IEEE J Selected Areas in Communications, Special issue on Internet Proxy Services 20(7):1315–1327, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paris J, Long D (1998) A low bandwidth broadcasting protocol for video on demand. In: Proceedings of IEEE Int’l Conference on Computer Communications and Networks, pp 690–697Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rejaie R, Handley M, Estrin D (1999) Quality adaptation for congestion controlled video playback over the Internet. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, pp 189–200Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Viswanathan S, Imielinski T (1996) Metropolitan area video-on-demand service using pyramid broadcasting. Multimedia Syst 4(4):197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang Z-L, Wang Y, Du DHC, Shu D (2000) Video staging: a proxy-server-based approach to end-to-end video delivery over wide-area networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 8(4):429–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Poznan Supercomputing and Networking CenterPoznanPoland
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Digital Technology CenterUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations