Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 76, Issue 5, pp 7535–7561 | Cite as

An adaptive buffer-map exchange mechanism for pull-based peer-to-peer video-on-demand streaming systems



Unlike P2P live video streaming in which all the peers in a channel watch a video with tiny differences in viewing points, in P2P video on demand (VoD) streaming systems, neighbor peers may watch the same video with more different viewing points; therefore, using push-based approach is not efficient for such systems, and the overhead of the pull-based approaches is challenging due to the periodical exchange of buffer-maps among the peers. In pull-based P2P VoD systems, to achieve better quality of experience it is necessary to use large buffers at the peers that results in more buffer-maps exchange overhead. In this paper, we study buffer-map exchange challenging in pull-based P2P VoD streaming systems and propose an adaptive mechanism for decreasing overhead by sending the buffer-maps with regard to the viewing points of the peers. Bandwidth overhead of the proposed mechanism is independent of the used buffer sizes and is less dependent to the buffer-map exchange period. By using this effective mechanism, better quality of service can be achieved through using large buffers at the peers, without increasing in the overhead. Our simulation based performance evaluation shows the efficiency of the proposed mechanism in decreasing the bandwidth overhead of buffer-map exchange in P2P VoD streaming systems.


Video-on-demand Peer-to-Peer Buffer-map exchange Video streaming 


  1. 1.
    (2010) Arizona State University video trace library. In:
  2. 2.
    (2012) OMNeT++ network simulation framework In:
  3. 3.
    Baumgart I, Heep B, Krause S (2009) OverSim: a scalable and flexible overlay framework for simulation and real network applications. In: Proceedings of Ninth IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing, pp. 87–88Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Castro M et al (2003) SplitStream: high-bandwidth multicast in cooperative environments. ACM SIGOPS Oper Syst Rev 37(5):298–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang L, Pan J, Xing M (2013) Effective utilization of user resources in PA-VoD systems with channel heterogeneity. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 31(9):227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chatzidrossos I, Dán G, Fodor V (2010) Delay and playout probability trade-off in mesh-based peer-to-peer streaming with delayed buffer map updates. Peer-to-Peer Netw Appl 3(3):208–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chu Y-H, Rao SG, Zhang H (2002) A case for end system multicast. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 20(8):1456–1471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dana C et al (2005) Bass: bittorrent assisted streaming system for video-on-demand. In: 7th IEEE Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing, pp. 1–4Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deng G et al (2010) A bitmap coding method for p2p streaming protocols. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Asia Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics, pp. 368–372Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Do TT, Hua KA, Tantaoui MA (2004) P2VoD: providing fault tolerant video-on-demand streaming in peer-to-peer environment. IEEE Int Conf Commun 3:1467–1472Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feng C, Li BC, Li B (2009) Understanding the performance gap between pull-based mesh streaming protocols and fundamental limits. In: Proceedings of the 28th IEEE INFOCOM, pp. 891–899Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldoni E, Schivi M (2010) End-to-end available bandwidth estimation tools, an experimental comparison. Traffic monitoring and analysis. Springer, Berlin, pp 171–182Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guo Y et al (2007) P2Cast: peer-to-peer patching for video on demand service”. Multimed Tools Appl 33(2):109–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hei X et al (2007) A measurement study of a large-scale P2P IPTV system. IEEE Trans Multimed 9(8):1672–1687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jahromi NT, Akbari B, Movaghar A (2010) A hybrid mesh-tree peer-to-peer overlay structure for layered video streaming. In: Proceedings of 5th International Symposium on Telecommunications, pp. 706–709Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jannotti J et al (2000) Overcast: reliable multicasting with on overlay network. Proc Oper Syst Des Implement 4Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li B et al (2008) Inside the new coolstreaming: principles, measurements and performance implications. In: Proceedings of the 27th INFOCOMGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li C et al (2014) Relevant window-based bitmap compression in P2P Systems: framework and solution. IEEE Trans Multimed 16(7):1821–1833Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lima L et al (2013) Optimal rate allocation for P2P video streaming. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 31(9):200–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu Y, Geo Y, Liang C (2008) A survey on peer-to-peer video streaming systems. Peer-to-Peer Netw Appl 1(1):18–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu J et al (2008) Opportunities and challenges of peer-to-peer internet video broadcast. Proc IEEE 96(1):11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu C-Y, Wang K, Hsieh Y-L (2010) Efficient push-pull based P2P multi-streaming using application level multicast. In: Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Symposium on Personal Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, pp. 2586–2590Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Luo J (2010) Practical algorithm for minimum delay peer-to-peer media streaming. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, pp. 986–991Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Magharei N, Rejaie R (2009) PRIME: peer-to-peer receiver-driven mesh-based streaming. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 17(4):1052–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Padmanabhan VN, Wang HJ, Chou PA (2003) Resilient peer-to-peer streaming. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols, pp. 16–27Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Puttrapornpisut P et al (2011) 2PMP: a push-pull with buffer-map prediction algorithm for peer to peer live streaming. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Intelligent Signal Processing and Communications Systems, pp. 1–5Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ramzan N, Park H, Izquierdo E (2012) Video streaming over P2P networks: challenges and opportunities. Signal Process Image Commun 27(5):401–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schwarz H, Marpe D, Wiegand T (2007) Overview of the scalable video coding extension of the H.264/AVC standard. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 17(9):1103–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Seyyedi S, Akbari B (2011) Hybrid CDN-P2P architectures for live video streaming: comparative study of connected and unconnected meshes. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Computer Networks and Distributed Systems, pp. 175–180Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shen Z et al (2011) Peer-to-Peer media streaming: insights and new developments. Proc IEEE 99(12):2089–2109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shuai Y et al (2011) P2PVR: a playback offset aware multicast tree for on-demand streaming with VCR function. J Syst Archit 57(4):392–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Süselbeck R et al (2011) Efficient bandwidth estimation for peer-to-peer systems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P), pp. 10–19Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Uedera R, Fujita S (2013) A cost-effective buffer map notification scheme for P2P VoDs supporting VCR operations. IEICE Trans Inf Syst 96(12):2713–2719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vari I (2012) INET framework for OMNeT++. In:
  36. 36.
    Wang F, Liu J, Xiong Y (2008) Stalbe peers: existence, importance, and application in peer-to-peer live video streaming. In: Proceedings of the 27th IEEE INFOCOMGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang M, Xu L, Ramamurthy B (2013) Exploring the design space of multichannel peer-to-peer live video streaming systems. IEEE/ACM Trans Networking 21(1):162–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wu D et al (2009) View-upload decoupling: a redesign of multichannel P2P video systems. In Proceedings of the 28th INFOCOM, pp. 2726–2730Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yu L et al (2009) Hybrid buffering scheme for P2P based VoD system. In: Proceedings of Third International Conference on Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, pp. 99–104Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zhang X et al (2005) CoolStreaming/DONet: a data driven overlay network for live media streaming. In: Proceedings of the 24th INFOCOM, vol. 3, pp. 2102–2111Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhang J et al (2014) Modeling and performance analysis of pull-based live streaming schemes in peer-to-peer network. Comput Commun 40:22–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringTarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations