Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 61, Issue 2, pp 447–470 | Cite as

Optimized mobile thin clients through a MPEG-4 BiFS semantic remote display framework

  • Pieter Simoens
  • Bojan Joveski
  • Ludovico Gardenghi
  • Iain James Marshall
  • Bert Vankeirsbilck
  • Miha Mitrea
  • Francoise Prêteux
  • Filip De Turck
  • Bart Dhoedt
Article
  • 167 Downloads

Abstract

According to the thin client computing principle, the user interface is physically separated from the application logic. In practice only a viewer component is executed on the client device, rendering the display updates received from the distant application server and capturing the user interaction. Existing remote display frameworks are not optimized to encode the complex scenes of modern applications, which are composed of objects with very diverse graphical characteristics. In order to tackle this challenge, we propose to transfer to the client, in addition to the binary encoded objects, semantic information about the characteristics of each object. Through this semantic knowledge, the client is enabled to react autonomously on user input and does not have to wait for the display update from the server. Resulting in a reduction of the interaction latency and a mitigation of the bursty remote display traffic pattern, the presented framework is of particular interest in a wireless context, where the bandwidth is limited and expensive. In this paper, we describe a generic architecture of a semantic remote display framework. Furthermore, we have developed a prototype using the MPEG-4 Binary Format for Scenes to convey the semantic information to the client. We experimentally compare the bandwidth consumption of MPEG-4 BiFS with existing, non-semantic, remote display frameworks. In a text editing scenario, we realize an average reduction of 23% of the data peaks that are observed in remote display protocol traffic.

Keywords

Thin client Semantic remote display 

References

  1. 1.
    Balachandran K, Bi Q, Rudrapatna A, Seymour J, Soni R, Weber A (2009) Performance assessment of next-generation wireless mobile systems. Bell Laboratories Technical Journal 13(4):35–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boukerche A, Pazzi RWN, Feng J (2008) An end-to-end virtual environment streaming technique for thin mobile devices over heterogeneous networks. Comput Commun 31(11):2716–2725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Citrix Systems Inc.: http://www.citrix.com. Last retrieved on 2011-04-20.
  4. 4.
    Claypool M, Claypool K (2006) Latency and player actions in online games. Commun ACM 49(11):40–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deboosere L, De Wachter J, Simoens P, De Turck F, Dhoedt B, Demeester P (2007) Thin client computing solutions in low- and high-motion scenarios. In proceedings of the Third International Conference on Networking and Services (ICNS 2007), pp. 230–235.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Descampe A, De Vleeschouwer C, Iregui M, Macq B, Marques F (2007) Prefetching and caching strategies for remote and interactive browsing of JPEG-2000 images. IEEE Trans Image Process 16(5):1339–1354MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Epiphany, the official web browser of the GNOME desktop environment: http://projects.gnome.org/epiphany/ Last retrieved on 2011-04-20.
  8. 8.
    FreeNX. http://freenx.berlios.de Last retrieved on 2011-04-20.
  9. 9.
    gEdit, the official text editor of the GNOME desktop environment: http://projects.gnome.org/gedit/ Last retrieved on 2011-04-20.
  10. 10.
    Hua ZG, Xie X, Liu H, Lu HQ, Ma WY (2006) Design and performance studies of an adaptive scheme for serving dynamic Web content in a mobile computing environment. IEEE Trans Mobile Comput 5(12):1650–1662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO/IEC (2005) Coding of audio-visual objects—part 11: Scene description and application engine. ISO/IEC 14496–11.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO/IEC (2008) Coding of audio-visual objects—Part 20: Lightweight Application Scene Representation (LASeR) and Simple Aggregation Format (SAF).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jansen J, Bulterman DCA (2009) SMIL State: an architecture and implementation for adaptive time-based web applications. Multimed Tool Appl 43(3):203–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Joveski B, Mitrea M, Preteux F (2010) MPEG-4 LASeR-based thin client remote viewer. In Proceedings of 2nd European Workshop on Visual Information Processing (EUVIP), Paris, France.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joveski B, Simoens P, Gardenghi L, Marshall J, Mitrea M, Vankeirsbilck B, Preteux F, Dhoedt B (2011) Towards a multimedia remote viewer for mobile clients. In Proceedings of the Multimedia on Mobile Devices and Multimedia Content Access, SPIE, San Francisco, USA.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khin HS, Kim S (2007) An analyzer of the user event for interactive DMB. In proceedings of Third International Conference on Embedded Software and Systems (ICESS 2007). Lecture Notes in Computer Science (vol.4523), pp. 818–25.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim HC, Leong, JM, Kim K (2004) Development of interactive contents streaming system based on mpeg-4. In proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology, vol. 2, pp. 751–755.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kohler E, Morris R, Chen B, Jannotti J, Kaashoek M (2000) The Click modular router. ACM Trans Comput Syst 18(3):263–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koller D, Turitzin M, Levoy M, Tarini M, Croccia G, Cignoni P, Scopigno R (2004) Protected interactive 3D graphics via remote rendering. ACM Trans Graph 23(3):695–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Le Feuvre J, Concolato C, Moissinac JC (2007) Gpac: open source multimedia framework. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Multimedia (MULTIMEDIA ‘07), pp. 1009–1012.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lethanhman C, Isokawa H, Kato T (2009) Multipath data transmission for wireless thin clients. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Mobile Ubiquitous Computing Systems, Services and Technologies (UBICOMM), Malta.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Live555: Live555 streaming media. http://www.live555.com Last retrieved on 2011-04-20.
  23. 23.
    MicroSoft: Remote desktop protocol: Basic connectivity and graphics remoting specification. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc240445 Last retrieved on 2011-04-20.
  24. 24.
    Mitrea M, Simoens P, Joveski B, Marshall J, Taguengayte A, Prêteux F, Dhoedt B (2009) BiFS-based approaches to remote display for mobile thin clients. In Proceedings of the SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering, vol. 7444, p. 74440F, pp. 8.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paravati G, Celozzi C, Sanna A, Lamberti F (2010) A feedback-based control technique for interactive live streaming systems to mobile devices. IEEE Trans Consum Electron 56(1):190–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pendyala VS, Shim SSY (2009) The web as the ubiquitous computer. Computer 42(9):90–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Preda M, Villegas P, Moran F, Lafruit G, Berretty RP (2007) A model for adapting 3D graphics based on scalable coding, real-time simplification and remote rendering. VISUAL COMPUTER 24(10):881–888. International Conference on Cyberworlds, Hannover, GERMANY, OCT 24–27, 2007.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    RealVNC: Virtual network computing. http://www.realvnc.com Last retrieved on 2011-04-20.
  29. 29.
    Richardson T, Staford-Fraser Q, Wood K, Hopper A (1998) Virtual network computing. IEEE Internet Comput 2(1):33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sandklef H (2004) Testing applications with Xnee. Linux Journal 117:87–90Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schlosser D, Binzenhoefer A, Staehle B (2007) Performance Comparison of Windows-based Thin-Client Architectures. In: 2007 AUSTRALASIANTELECOMMUNICATION NETWORKS AND APPLICATIONS CONFERENCE, pp. 223–228. Australasian Telecommunication Networks and Applications Conference, Christchurch, NEW ZEALAND, DEC 02–05, 2007.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schlosser D, Staehle B, Binzenhofer A, Boder B (2010) Improving the QoE of Citrix Thin Client Users. In: ICC 2010–2010 IEEE International Conference on Communications.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Signes J, Fisher Y, Eleftheriadis A (2000) MPEG-4’s binary format for scene description. Signal Process Image Comm 15(4–5):321–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Simoens P, Praet P, Vankeirsbilck B, De Wachter J, Deboosere L, De Turck F, Dhoedt B, Demeester P (2008) Design and implementation of a hybrid remote display protocol to optimize multimedia experience on thin client devices. In: ATNAC: 2008 AUSTRALASIAN TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORKS AND APPLICATIONS CONFERENCE, pp. 391–396. Australasian Networks and Applications Conference 2008, Adelaide, AUSTRALIA, DEC 07–10, 2008.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Simoens P, Vankeirsbilck B, Deboosere L, Azmat Ali F, De Turck F, Dhoedt B, Demeester P (2011) Upstream bandwidth optimization of thin client protocols through latency-aware adaptive user event buffering. Int J Comm Syst 24:666–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sun Y, Tay TT (2008) Analysis and reduction of data spikes in thin client computing. J Parallel Distr Comput 68(11):1463–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tan KJ, Gong JW, Wu BT, Chang DC, Li HY, Hsiao YM, Chen YC, Lo SW, Chu YS, Guo JI (2010) A remote thin client system for real time multimedia streaming over VNC. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), pp. 992–997.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    TightVNC: Tightvnc. http://www.tightvnc.com Last retrieved on 2011-04-20.
  39. 39.
    Tolia N, Andersen D, Satyanarayanan M (2006) Quantifying interactive user experience on thin clients. Computer 39(3):46+CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang F, Ghosh A, Sankaran C, Fleming PJ, Hsieh F, Benes SJ (2008) Mobile WiMAX systems: performance and evolution. IEEE Comm Mag 46(10):41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wellnitz O, Wolf L (2010) On latency in IEEE 802.11-based wireless ad-hoc networks. In 2010 5th International Symposium on Wireless Pervasive Computing (ISWPC), pp. 261–266.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter Simoens
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bojan Joveski
    • 3
  • Ludovico Gardenghi
    • 3
  • Iain James Marshall
    • 4
  • Bert Vankeirsbilck
    • 2
  • Miha Mitrea
    • 3
  • Francoise Prêteux
    • 5
  • Filip De Turck
    • 2
  • Bart Dhoedt
    • 2
  1. 1.HoGent—Department INWEGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Department INTECGhent University—IBBTGhentBelgium
  3. 3.ARTEMIS DepartmentInstitut TelecomEvryFrance
  4. 4.Prologue, ZA de CourtaboeufLes Ulis CEDEXFrance
  5. 5.MINES ParisTechParisCedex 06France

Personalised recommendations