Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 117–134 | Cite as

Caching collaboration and cache allocation in peer-to-peer video systems

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Providing scalable video services in a peer-to-peer (P2P) environment is challenging. Since videos are typically large and require high communication bandwidth for delivery, many peers may be unwilling to cache them in whole to serve others. In this paper, we address two fundamental research problems in providing scalable P2P video services: (1) how a host can find enough video pieces, which may scatter among the whole system, to assemble a complete video; and (2) given a limited buffer size, what part of a video a host should cache and what existing data should be expunged to make necessary space. We address these problems with two new ideas: Cell caching collaboration and Controlled Inverse Proportional (CIP) cache allocation. The Cell concept allows cost-effective caching collaboration in a fully distributed environment and can dramatically reduce video lookup cost. On the other hand, CIP cache allocation challenges the conventional caching wisdom by caching unpopular videos in higher priority. Our approach allows the system to retain many copies of popular videos to avoid creating hot spots and at the same time, prevent unpopular videos from being quickly evicted from the system. We have implemented a Gnutella-like simulation network and use it as a testbed to evaluate the proposed technique. Our extensive study shows convincingly the performance advantage of the new scheme.

Keywords

Peer-to-peer video services File lookup Caching collaboration Cache allocation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Acharya S, Smith BC (2000) MiddleMan: a video caching proxy server. In: Proc. ACM/IEEE NOSSDAV, Chapel Hill, NC, JuneGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adler M, Kumar R, Ross K, Rubenstein D, Turner D, Yao D (2005) Optimal peer selection for P2P downloading and streaming. In: Proc. of INFOCOM’05Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aggarwal G, Motwani R, Zhu A (2003) The load rebalancing problem. In: Proc. of ACM SPAA’03Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Banerjee BBS, Kommareddy C (2002) Scalable application layer multicast. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, Pittsburgh, PA, pp 205–217Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Byers J, Considine J, Mitzenmacher M (2003) Simple load balancing for distributed hash tables. In: Proc. of IPTPS’03, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cai Y, Chen Z, Tavanapong W (2005) Video management in peer-to-peer systems. In: Proc. of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-peer Computing, Gemany, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chawathe Y, Ratnasamy S, Breslau L, Lanham N, Shenker S (2003) Making Gnutella-like P2P systems scalable. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, pp 407–418, Karlsruhe, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chu Y-H, Rao SG, Seshan S, Zhang H (2001) Enabling conferencing applications on the internet using an overlay multicast architecture. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, San Diego, CA, pp 55–67Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chu Y-H, Rao SG, Zhang H (2000) A case for end system multicast. In: Proc. of ACM SIGMETRICS, Santa Clara, CA, pp 1–12, JuneGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clarke I, Sandberg O, Wiley B, Hong TW (2000) Freenet: a distributed anonymous information storage and retrieval system. In: ICSI Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability, San Diego, CA, USA, JulyGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen E, Shenker S (2002) Replication strategies in unstructured peer-to-peer networks. In: Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM’02, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, AugustGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cui Y, Li B, Nahrstedt K (2004) oStream: asynchronous streaming multicast in application-layer overlay networks. IEEE J Select Areas in Commun Special Issue on Recent Adv Overlay Netw 22(1):91–106, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dabek F, Kaashoek MF, Karger D, Morris R, Stoica I (2001) Wide-area cooperative storage with CFS. In: Proc. of 18th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSPŠ01), Alberta, Canada, pp 202–215Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dan A, Sitaram D, Shahabuddin P (1994) Scheduling policies for an on-demand video server with batching. In: Proc. of ACM Multimedia, San Francisco, California, pp 15–23, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eager DL, Ferris MC, Vernon MK (1999) Optimized regional caching for on-demand data delivery. In: Proc. of SPIE’s Conf. on Multimedia Computing and Networking (MMCN’99), San Jose, CA, USA, pp 301–316, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eager DL, Vernon, MK, Zahorjan J (2001) Minimizing bandwidth requirements for on-demand data delivery. IEEE Tras Knowledge Data Eng 13(5):742–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ganguly S, Saxena A, Bhatnagar S, Banerjee S, Izmailov R (2005) Fast replication in content distribution overlays. In: Proc. of INFOCOM’05Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gifford DK (1979) Weighted voting for replicated data. In: Proc. 7th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pp 150–159Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gruber S, Rexford J, Basso A (2000) Protocol considerations for a prefix-caching proxy for multimedia streams. Comput Netw 33(1–6):657–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hefeeda M, Habib A, Botev B, Xu D, Bhargava BK (2003) PROMISE: Peer-to-peer media streaming using collectCast. In: Proc. ACM Multimedia’03, Berkeley, CA, pp 45–54Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hua KA, Cai Y, Sheu S (1998) Patching: a multicast technique for true video-on-demand services. In: Proc. of ACM Multimedia, Bristol, UK, pp 191–200, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karger D, Ruhl M (2003) New algorithms for load balancing in peer-to-peer systems. In: Tech. Rep. MIT-LCS-TR911, MIT LCS, JulyGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kubiatowicz J, Bindel D, Chen Y, Eaton P, Geels D, Gummadi R, Rhea S, Weatherspoon H, Weimer W, Wells C, Zhao B (2000) OceanStore: an architecture for global-scale persistent storage. In: Proc. of ACM ASPLOS, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lv Q, Cao P, Cohen E, Li K, Shenker S (2002) Search and replication in unstructured peer-to-peer networks. In: Proc. of ACM International Conference on Supercomputing, JuneGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miao Z, Ortega A (2002) Scalable proxy caching of video under storage constraints. IEEE J Select Areas in Commun 20(7):1315–1327, SeptemberCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nakao A, Peterson L, Bavier A (2003) A routing underlay for overlay networks. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, Karlsruhe, Germany, pp 11–18Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paknikar S, Kankanhalli M, Ramakrishnan KR, Srinivasan SH, Ngoh LH (2000) A caching and streaming framework for multimedia. In: Proc. of ACM Multimedia’00, CA, October, pp 13–20Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Park Y-W, Baek K-H, Chung K-D (2000) Reducing network traffic using two-layered cache servers for continuous media data on the internet. In: Proc. of the IEEE Int’l. Conf. on Computer Software and Applications, Taipei, Taiwan, pp 389–374, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ramesh S, Rhee I, Guo K (2001) Multicast with cache (MCache): an adaptive zero-delay video-on-demand service. In: Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM’01, pp 22–26, AprilGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rao A, Lakshminarayanan K, Surana S, Karp R, Stoica I (2003) Load balancing in structured p2p systems. In: Proc. of IPTPS’03, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ratnasamy S, Francis P, Handley M, Karp R, Shenker S (2001) A scalable content-addressable network. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, San Diego, CA, pp 161–172Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rejaie R, Handley M, Yu H, Estrin D (1999) Proxy caching mechanism for multimedia playback streams in the Internet. In: Proc. of Int’l Web Caching Workshop, San Jose, CA, MarchGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rowstron A, Druschel P (2001) Pastry: scalable, distributed object location and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In: Proc. IFIP/ACM Int. Conf. Distributed Systems Platforms (Middleware), Heidelberg, Germany, pp 329–350Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rowstron A, Druschel P (2001) Storage management in past, a large-scale, persistent peer-to-peer storage utility. In: Proc. of 18th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSPŠ01), Alberta, Canada, pp 188–201Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Saroiu S, Gummadi PK, Gribble SD (2002) A measurement study of peer-to-peer file sharing systems. In: Proc. of SPIE’s Conf. on Multimedia Computing and Networking (MMCN’02), San Jose, CA, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sen S, Rexford J, Towsley D (1999) Proxy prefix caching for multimedia streams. In: Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM’99, pp 1310–1319, MarchGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sheu S, Hua KA, Tavanapong W (1997) Chaining: a generalized batching technique for video-on-demand. In Proc. of the Int’l Conf. On Multimedia Computing and System, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp 110–117, JuneGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stoica I, Morris R, Karger D, Kaashock M, Balakrishman H (2001) Chord: a scalable peer-to-peer lookup protocol for internet applications. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, San Diego, CA, pp 149–160Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tang C, Xu Z, Dwarkadas S (2003) Peer-to-peer information retrieval using self-organizing semantic overlay networks. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, Karlsruhe, Germany, pp 175–186Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Thomas RH (1979) A majority consensus approach to concurrency control for multiple copy databases. ACM Trans Database Syst 4(2):180–209, JuneCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tran DA, Hua KA, Do TT (2004) A peer-to-peer architecture for media streaming. IEEE J Selected Areas Commun Special Issue on Recent Adv Overlay Netw 22(1):91–106, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Padmanabhan PCV, Wang H, Sripanidkulchai K (2002) Distributing streaming media content using cooperative networking. In: Proc. ACM/IEEE NOSSDAV, Miami, FL, pp 177–186Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wu K-L, Yu PS, Wolf JL (2001) Segment-based proxy caching of multimedia streams. In: Proc. of World Wide Web, pp 36–44Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Xu D, Hefeeda M, Hambrusch S, Bhargava B (2002) On peer-to-peer media streaming. In: Proc. IEEE Conf. on Distributed Computing and Systems (ICDCS), Wien, Austria, pp 363–371Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhang Z-L, Wang Y, Du D, Su 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.Department of Computer ScienceIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations