Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 76, Issue 4, pp 5317–5346 | Cite as

Improving quality of multimedia services through network performance isolation in a mobile device

  • Woonghee Lee
  • Hyunsoon Kim
  • Joon Yeop Lee
  • Hwangnam Kim


Due to the advancement of hardware and software, today’s mobile devices, such as smartphones, tablet PCs, and laptops, are capable of providing a wide range of services. Among various services, a lot of users use multimedia services on mobile devices, and the size of mobile multimedia traffic is constantly increasing. Especially, the growth of social networking services and content-sharing sites stimulates creating and sharing of multimedia contents. Such environment made it possible for today’s mobile users to frequently download or upload multimedia data. Nowadays, smartphones allow users to multi-task between different services, so the multimedia service often coexists with background services in a mobile device at the same time. In these cases, the performance degradation of a multimedia service happens due to concurrently running background services in the device. In this paper, we propose MuSNet, a scheme for improving QoS and QoE of multimedia services through network performance isolation in a mobile device, which resolves the aforementioned problem by applying the concept of performance isolation to the multimedia services. MuSNet is the mobile device-based scheme without any modification on servers. Furthermore, unlike most performance isolation implemented by virtual machines, we suggest a scheme that does not require virtualization that might be heavy for mobile devices. The proposed scheme was implemented on a smartphone by modifying the kernel, and various experiments were conducted to evaluate the advanced system behavior of MuSNet.


Multimedia services Quality of service Quality of experience Network performance isolation Mobile devices 


  1. 1.
    Android developer site (2015) [Online; accessed 22-February-2016]
  2. 2.
    Braden R (1989) Rfc-1122: requirements for internet hosts. Request for Comments pp. 356–363Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen C, Zhu X, de Veciana G, Bovik AC, Heath RW (2015) Rate adaptation and admission control for video transmission with subjective quality constraints. IEEE J Sel Top Sign Proces 9(1):22–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen J, Gerla M, Lee YZ, Sanadidi M (2008) Tcp with delayed ack for wireless networks. Ad Hoc Netw 6(7):1098–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen S, Yuan Z, Muntean GM (2013) An energy-aware multipath-tcp-based content delivery scheme in heterogeneous wireless networks. In: Wireless communications and networking conference (WCNC), 2013 IEEE. IEEE, pp 1291–1296Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen YC, Towsley D, Nahum EM, Gibbens RJ, Lim YS (2012) Characterizing 4g and 3g networks: supporting mobility with multipath tcp. School of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Tech. Rep. 22Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Devkota P, Reddy AN (2010) Performance of quantized congestion notification in tcp incast scenarios of data centers. In: IEEE international symposium on modeling, analysis & simulation of computer and telecommunication systems (MASCOTS), 2010. IEEE, pp 235–243Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dong Y, Yang X, Li J, Liao G, Tian K, Guan H (2012) High performance network virtualization with sr-iov. J Parallel Distrib Comput 72(11):1471–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ericsson Mobility Report November 2015 (2015) [Online; accessed 22-February-2016]
  10. 10.
    Etsion Y, Tsafrir D, Feitelson DG (2006) Process prioritization using output production: scheduling for multimedia. ACM Trans Multimed Comput Commun Appl (TOMM) 2(4):318–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fall KR, Stevens WR (2011) TCP/IP Illustrated, volume 1: the protocols. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greenberg A, Hamilton J, Maltz DA, Patel P (2008) The cost of a cloud: research problems in data center networks. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 39(1):68–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Juluri P, Tamarapalli V, Medhi D (2015) Sara: Segment aware rate adaptation algorithm for dynamic adaptive streaming over http. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on communication workshop (ICCW). IEEE, pp 1765–1770Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kelly T (2003) Scalable tcp: Improving performance in highspeed wide area networks. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 33(2):83–91MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khan A, Zugenmaier A, Jurca D, Kellerer W (2012) Network virtualization: a hypervisor for the internet?. IEEE Commun Mag 50(1):136–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuschnig R, Kofler I, Hellwagner H (2010) An evaluation of tcp-based rate-control algorithms for adaptive internet streaming of h. 264/svc. In: Proceedings of the first annual ACM SIGMM conference on multimedia systems. ACM, pp 157–168Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee D, Carpenter BE, Brownlee N (2010) Media streaming observations: trends in udp to tcp ratio. International Journal on Advances in Systems and Measurements 3(3–4)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee W, Kim H, Lee JY, Chung AY, Park YS, Kim H (2015) Network performance isolation scheme for qoe in a mobile device. In: Performance computing and communications conference (IPCCC), 2015 IEEE international. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li Z, Zhu X, Gahm J, Pan R, Hu H, Begen AC, Oran D (2014) Probe and adapt: rate adaptation for http video streaming at scale. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 32(4):719–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lim YK, Kim CG, Lee MS, Kim SD (2013) The stack allocation technique on android os. In: IT convergence and security 2012. Springer, pp 727–73Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu C, Bouazizi I, Gabbouj M (2010) Advanced rate adaption for unicast streaming of scalable video. In: IEEE international conference on communications (ICC), 2010. IEEE, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meng K, Xiao Y, Vrbsky SV (2009) Building a wireless capturing tool for wifi. Security and Communication Networks 2(6):654–668Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mok RK, Chan EW, Chang RK (2011) Measuring the quality of experience of http video streaming. In: 12Th IFIP/IEEE international symposium on integrated network management (IM 2011) and workshops. IEEE, pp 485–492Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mok RK, Chan EW, Luo X, Chang RK (2011) Inferring the qoe of http video streaming from user-viewing activities. In: Proceedings of the first ACM SIGCOMM workshop on measurements up the stack. ACM, pp 31–36Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    MuSNet - Performance Evaluation (2016) [Online; accessed 22-February-2016]
  26. 26.
    MuSNet - Posing problem (2016) [Online; accessed 22-February-2016]
  27. 27.
    Petrangeli S, Famaey J, Claeys M, Latré S, De Turck F (2016) Qoe-driven rate adaptation heuristic for fair adaptive video streaming. ACM Trans Multimed Comput Commun Appl (TOMM) 12(2):28Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Semke J, Mahdavi J, Mathis M (1998) Automatic tcp buffer tuning. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 28(4):315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shieh A, Kandula S, Greenberg A, Kim C (2010) Seawall: performance isolation for cloud datacenter networks. In: Proceedings of the 2nd USENIX conference on hot topics in cloud computing. USENIX Association, pp 1–1Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Siraj S, Gupta A, Badgujar R (2012) Network simulation tools survey. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering 1(4):199–206Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sodagar I (2011) The mpeg-dash standard for multimedia streaming over the internet. IEEE MultiMedia 4:62–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tappayuthpijarn K, Liebl G, Stockhammer T, Steinbach E (2009) Adaptive video streaming over a mobile network with tcp-friendly rate control. In: Proceedings of the 2009 international conference on wireless communications and mobile computing: Connecting the world wirelessly. ACM, pp 1325–1329Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Venkataramani A, Kokku R, Dahlin M (2002) Tcp nice: a mechanism for background transfers. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 36(SI):329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zheng H, Nieh J (2010) Rsio: automatic user interaction detection and scheduling. In: ACM SIGMETRICS performance evaluation review, vol 38. ACM, pp 263–274Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhu P, Zeng W, Li C (2007) Joint design of source rate control and qos-aware congestion control for video streaming over the internet. IEEE Trans Multimedia 9(2):366–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electrical EngineeringKorea UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations