Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 75, Issue 23, pp 16039–16057 | Cite as

A path selection approach with genetic algorithm for P2P video streaming systems

  • Erdem Karayer
  • Muge SayitEmail author


In peer-to-peer (P2P) video streaming applications, the Quality of Experience (QoE) obtained by peers may vary according to the level of network congestion on the path between the peer and its parents. In this paper, we have proposed a parent selection approach for hybrid push-pull based video streaming systems, taking physical paths into account. In this approach, we proactively measured the disjunction of paths between peers and partners and chose the set of parents among partners having maximum disjoint paths by using a genetic algorithm at the beginning of the streaming session. The peers continue the paths of parent set to keep disjoint during streaming. The proposed system was tested on NS3 and the obtained results show that the proposed approach provides an increase up to 10 % in continuity index compared to hybrid push-pull based system which does not consider underlying network infrastructure. Furthermore, higher performance in terms of other parameters related to QoE such as Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR), reset count, and network related parameters such as video propagation success among peers and re-selection rates of new parents is observed with the proposed approach.


Alternative path selection Hybrid push-pull Disjoint paths Proactive method 



This work is funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) Electric, Electronic and Informatics Research Group (EEEAG) under grant 111E022. We would like to thank to project members for them helping the implementation of the Coolstreaming-like framework.


  1. 1.
    Andersen D, Balakrishnan H, Kaashoek F, Morris R (2001) Resilient overlay networks. In: Proceedings of SOSP:131–145Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apostolopoulos JG, Trott MD (2004) Path diversity for enhanced media streaming. IEEE Commun Mag 42(8):80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baccaglini E, Grangetto M, Quacchioc E, Zezza S (2012) A study of an hybrid CDN–P2P system over the PlanetLab network. Signal Process Image Commun 27:430–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Banerjee S, Bhattacharjee B, Kommareddy C (2002) Scalable application layer multicast. SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 32(4):205–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Banerjee S, Seungjoon L, Bhattacharjee B, Srinivasan A (2006) Resilient multicast using overlays. IEEE/ACM Trans Networking 14(2):237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Belmonte MV, Díaz M, Cruz JLP, Reyna A (2013) COINS: COalitions and INcentiveS for effective peer-to-peer downloads. J Netw Comput Appl 36:484–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castro M, Druschel P, Kermarrec AM, Nandi A, Rowstron A, Singh A (2003) SplitStream: high-bandwidth multicast in a cooperative environment. In: Proceedings of SOSPGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chu Y, Rao SG, Seshan S, Zhang H (2002) A case for end system multicast. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 20(8):1456–1471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fei T, Tao S, Gao L, Guerin R, Zhang Z (2006) Light-Weight overlay path selection in a Peer-to-Peer environment. in: Proceedings of 25th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications:1–6Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fei T, Tao S, Gao L, Guerin R (2006) How to select a good alternate path in large peer-to-peer systems? in: Proceedings of 25th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications:1–13Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fesci-Sayit M, Tunalı ET, Tekalp AM (2012) Resilient peer-to-peer streaming of scalable video over hierarchical multicast trees with backup parent pools. Elsevier Sig Process Image Commun 27:113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Floyd S (2000) Congestion control principles. RFC 2914Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frossard P, De Martin JC, Civanlar MR (2008) Media streaming with network diversity. Proc IEEE 96(1):39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goyal VK (2001) Multiple description coding: compression meets the network. IEEE Signal Process Mag 18(5):74–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Habib A, Chuang J (2006) Service differentiated peer selection: an incentive mechanism for peer-to-peer media streaming. IEEE Trans Multimed 8(3):610–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hei X, Liang C, Liang J, Liu Y, Ross KW (2007) A measurement study of a large-scale P2P IPTV system. IEEE Trans Multimed 9:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaymak Y, Teket KD, Sayit M (2013) Parameter analysis for a push/pull-based P2P live video streaming application. In: Proceedings of the 21th IEEE Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference:1–4Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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: Proceddings of 27th IEEE Conference on Computer Communications:1031–1039Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lin YY, Lee JYB (2010) Path selection in streaming video over multioverlay application layer multicast. IEEE Trans Circ Syst Video Technol 20(7):1018–1031MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu J, Rao SG, Li B, Zhang H (2008) Opportunities and challenges of peer-to-peer Internet video broadcast. Proc IEEE 96(1):11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Network Simulator 3, <>. Accessed 16 Apr 2014
  22. 22.
    Noh J, Girod B (2012) Time-shifted streaming in a tree-based peer-to-peer system. J Commun 7(3):202–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Payberah AH, Kavalionak H, Kumaresan V, Montresor A, Haridi S (2012) CLive: cloud-assisted P2P live streaming. In: Proceedings of IEEE 12th International Conference Peer-to-Peer Computing:79–90Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    PPLive, Accessed 10 Dec 2014
  25. 25.
    PPStream, Accessed 10 Dec 2014
  26. 26.
    Rubenstein D, Kurose JF, Towsley DF (2002) Detecting shared congestion of flows via end-to-end measurement. IEEE/ACM Trans Networking 3:381–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rungeler I, Tuxen M, Rathgeb EP (2009) Congestion and flow control in the context of the message-oriented protocol SCTP. In: Proceedings of 8th International IFIP-TC 6 Networking Conference:468–481Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Srinivas M, Patnaik LM (1994) Genetic algorithms: a survey. Computer 27(6):17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sung-Ju L, Banerjee S, Sharma P, Yalagandula P, Basu S (2008) Bandwidth-aware routing in overlay networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 27th Conference on Computer CommunicationsGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Susu X, Li B, Keung GY, Xinyan Z (2007) Coolstreaming: design, theory, and practice. IEEE Trans Multimed 9(8):1661–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tang C, McKinley PK (2004) A distributed multipath computation framework for overlay network applications. Tech. Rep. MSUGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tao S, Xu K, Xu Y, Fei T, Gao L, Guerin R, Kurose JF, Towsley D, Zhang ZL (2004) Exploring the performance benefits of end-to-end path switching. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols:304–315Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Teket KD, Sayit M (2013) P2P video streaming with ALTO protocol P2P video streaming with ALTO protocol. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting:1–6Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    BRITE TopologyGenerator, <>. Accessed 16 Apr 2014
  35. 35.
    Wang W, Chen Y (2011) SmartPeerCast: a smart QoS driven P2P live streaming framework. Multimed Tools Appl 54:445–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang F, Liu J, Chen M (2012) CALMS: cloud-assisted live media streaming for globalized demands with time/region diversities. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM:199–207Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang F, Liu J, Xiong Y (2008) Stable peers: existence, importance, and application in peer-to-peer live video streaming. In: Proceedings of 27th Conference on Computer Communication:2038–2046Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang F, Xiongand Y, Liu J (2010) mTreebone: a collaborative tree/mesh overlay network for multicast video streaming. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 21(3):379–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Xu Y, Zhu C, Zeng W, Li XJ, Multiple description coded video streaming in Peer-to-Peer networks. Signal Process Image Commun 27(5):412–429Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yin H, Liu X, Zhan T, Sekar V, Qiu F, Lin C, Zhang H, Li B (2010) LiveSky: enhancing CDN with P2P. ACM Trans Multimed Comput Commun Appl 6(3)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zeng W, Zhu Y, Lu H, Zhuang X (2009) Path-diversity P2P overlay retransmission for reliable IP-multicast. IEEE Trans Multimed 11(5):960–971Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhang M, Lai J, Krishnamurthy A, Peterson L, Wang R (2004) A transport layer approach for improving end-to-end performance and robustness using redundant paths. In: Proceedings of USENIX Annual Technical ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhang X, Liu J, Liand B, Yum TSP (2005) CoolStreaming/DONet: a data-driven overlay network for peer-to-peer live media streaming. In: Proceedings of 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies:2102–2111Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhang J, Liu L, Ramaswamy L, Pu C (2008) PeerCast: churn-resilient end system multicast on heterogeneous overlay networks. J Netw Comput Appl 31:821–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhao BY, Huang L, Stribling J, Joseph AD, Kubiatowicz JD, Exploiting routing redundancy via structured Peer-to-Peer overlays. In: Proceedings of 11th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols:246–257Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Computer InstituteEge UniversityBornovaTurkey

Personalised recommendations