Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 100–114 | Cite as

CliqueStream: Creating an efficient and resilient transport overlay for peer-to-peer live streaming using a clustered DHT

Article

Abstract

Several overlay-based live multimedia streaming platforms have been proposed in the recent peer-to-peer streaming literature. In most of the cases, the overlay neighbors are chosen randomly for robustness of the overlay. However, this causes nodes that are distant in terms of proximity in the underlying physical network to become neighbors, and thus data travels unnecessary distances before reaching the destination. For efficiency of bulk data transmission like multimedia streaming, the overlay neighborhood should resemble the proximity in the underlying network. In this paper, we exploit the proximity and redundancy properties of a recently proposed clique-based clustered overlay network, named eQuus, to build efficient as well as robust transport overlays for multimedia streaming. To combine the efficiency of content pushing over tree structured overlays and the robustness of data-driven mesh overlays, higher capacity stable nodes are organized in tree structure to carry the long haul traffic and less stable nodes with intermittent presence are organized in localized meshes. The overlay construction and fault-recovery procedures are explained in details. Simulation study demonstrates the good locality properties of the platform. The outage time and control overhead induced by the failure recovery mechanism are minimal as demonstrated by the analysis.

Keywords

Peer-to-peer overlay Live streaming Clustered overlay Proximity based overlay 

References

  1. 1.
    Castro M, Druschel P, Hu Y, Rowstron A (2002) Exploiting network proximity in peer-to-peer networks. Technical report MSR-TR-2002-82, Microsoft ResearchGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Castro M, Druschel P, Kermarrec A, Nandi A, Rowstron A, Singh A (2003) SplitStream: high-bandwidth multicast in cooperative environments. In: 19th ACM symp. on operating systems principles (SOSP), pp 298–313Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castro M, Druschel P, Kermarrec AM, Rowstron A (2002) Scribe: a large-scale and decentralized application-level multicast infrastructure. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 20:1489–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castro M, Jones MB, Kermarrec AM, Rowstron A, Theimer M, Wang H, Wolman A (2003) An evaluation of scalable application-level multicast built using peer-to-peer overlays. In: IEEE INFOCOMGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chay M, Rodriguez P, Moony S, Crowcroft J (2008) On next-generation telco-managed P2P TV architectures. In: 7th IPTPSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dabek F, Cox R, Kaashoek F, Morris R (2004) Vivaldi: a decentralized network coordinate system. In: ACM SIGCOMM ’04, pp 15–26Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dilley J, Maggs B, Parikh J, Prokop H, Sitaraman R, Weihl B (2002) Globally distributed content delivery. IEEE Internet Computing 6(5):50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hei X, Liang C, Liang J, Liu Y, ross KW (2007) A measurement study of a large-scale P2P IPTV system. IEEE Trans Multimedia 9(8):1672–1687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li B, Xie S, Qu Y, Keung GY, Lin C, Liu J, Zhang X (2008) Inside the new coolstreaming: principles, measurements and performance implications. In: The 27th IEEE INFOCOM, pp 1031–1039Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liang J, Nahrstedt K (2006) DagStream: locality aware and failure resilient peer-to-peer streaming. In: Intl. conf. on multimedia computing and networking (MMCN)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liao X, Jin H, Liu Y, Ni LM, Deng D (2006) AnySee: peer-to-peer live streaming. In: IEEE INFOCOMGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Locher T, Schmid S, Wattenhofer R (2006) eQuus: a provably robust and locality-aware peer-to-peer system. In: Peer-to-peer computing, 2006. P2P 2006. Sixth IEEE international conference on, 6–8 September 2006, pp 3–11Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ratnasamy S, Francis P, Handley M, Karp R, Shenker S (2001) A scalable content-addressable networks. In: ACM SIGCOMM-01, pp 161–172Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rowstron A, Druschel P (2001) Pastry: scalable, decentralized object location, and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In: IFIP/ACM intl conf on distributed systems platforms, pp 329–350Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Silverston T, Fourmaux O (2006) P2P IPTV measurement: a case study of TVAnts. In: 2nd conference on future networking technologies (CoNEXT)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tran DA, Hua KA, Do TT (2004) A peer-to-peer architecture for media streaming. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 22(1):121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Venkataraman V, Francisy P, Calandrinoz J (2006) Chunkyspread: multitree unstructured peertopeer multicast. In: 6th IPTPSGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang F, Liu J, Xiong Y (2008) Stable peers: existence, importance, and application in peer-to-peer live video streaming. In: IEEE INFOCOMGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang F, Xiong YQ, Liu JC (2007) mTreebone: a hybrid tree/mesh overlay for application-layer live video multicast. In: 27th IEEE ICDCS, p 49Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wu C, Li B, Zhao S (2007) Magellan: charting the large-scale peer-to-peer live streaming topologies. In: IEEE ICDCSGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang X, Liu J, Li B, Yum Y (2005) CoolStreaming/DONet: a data-driven overlay network for peer-to-peer live media streaming. In: The 24th IEEE INFOCOMGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shah Asaduzzaman
    • 1
  • Ying Qiao
    • 1
  • Gregor v. Bochmann
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information Technology EngineeringUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations