Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 77, Issue 7, pp 8081–8114 | Cite as

Effective client-driven three-level rate adaptation (TLRA) approach for adaptive HTTP streaming

Article
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

Multimedia streaming allows consumers to view multimedia content anywhere. However, quality of service is a major concern amid heightened levels of network traffic caused by increasing user demand. Accordingly, media streaming technology is adopting a new paradigm: adaptive HTTP streaming (AHS). AHS is widely used for real-time streaming content delivery in the Internet environment. In streaming, selection of appropriate bitrate is crucial for adapting media rate to network variations and client processing capabilities while ensuring optimal service for the consumer. We evaluate a proposed client-driven three-level optimized rate adaptation algorithm for adaptive HTTP media streaming. In the first stage, the algorithm chooses a suitable starting bitrate close to the available channel capacity. Next, the algorithm monitors the client parameters in real time, precisely detecting network variations and choosing a likely available bit representation for the next download segment. The algorithm controls and minimizes the effects of buffer stalls and overflow resulting from the brief network variations occurring between consecutive segments. The proposed algorithm is implemented in Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) player and its performance compared to that of commercially available Gstreamer-based HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) and DASH players which use conventional segment fetch time–based adaptation and throughput-based adaptation algorithms respectively. This evaluation uses a real-time cloud server client and test bed streaming setup. The resulting analysis shows that the client-driven three-level rate adaptation (TLRA) approach allows adaptive streaming clients to maximize use of end-to-end network capacity, delivering an ideal user experience by precisely predicting network variations and rapidly adapting to available bandwidth, minimizing rebuffering events and bitrate level changes.

Keywords

Adaptive HTTP streaming Conventional streaming DASH HLS Rate adaptation Quality of service TLRA 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank our colleagues from Accenture Bangalore and Karunya University, who provided extensive guidance and valuable comments that significantly improved the quality of our research.

References

  1. 1.
    3GPP (2016) Technical specifications: Transparent end-to-end Packet-switched Streaming Service (PSS), Progressive Download and Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (3GP-DASH), 3GPP TS 26.247 Release 13.2.0. Available: https://portal.3gpp.org/. Accessed 12 Jan 2016
  2. 2.
    Adobe HTTP Dynamic Streaming (HDS) technology center and specifications (2016). Available: https://www.adobe.com/devnet/hds.html. Accessed 20 April 2016
  3. 3.
    Akhshabi S, Begen A, Dovrolis C (2011) An experimental evaluation of rate-adaptation algorithms in adaptive streaming over HTTP. Proceedings of the ACM Multimedia Systems Conference, pp 157–168Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alaoui Y, Dröge S (n.d.) HTTP live streaming demuxer and rate algorithms implementation for gstreamer. HLS playback. https://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/src/gst-plugins-bad/
  5. 5.
    Allman M, Paxson V, Stevens W (1999) TCP congestion control. RFC 2581Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allman M, Floyd S, Partridge C (2002) TCP increasing TCP’s initial window. RFC 3390Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    AWS (2016) Amazon Web services -Elastic cloud computing (EC2), simple storage service (S3) and Cloud front service configuration and usage. Available: https://aws.amazon.com/products/. Accessed 12 Jan 2016
  8. 8.
    Azumi M, Kurosaka T, Bandai M (2015) A QoE-aware quality-level switching algorithm for adaptive video streaming. IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), pp 1–5Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Busse I, Deffner B, Schulzrinne H (1996) Dynamic QoS control of multimedia applications based on RTP. Elsevier Comput Commun 19(1):49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Corvoysier D, Zakari H (n.d.) Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP demuxer and rate adaptation implementation for Gstreamer. DASH playback https://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/src/gst-plugins-bad/
  11. 11.
    ffmpeg (2016) Multi-bitrate video transcoding setup and process Available: http://ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg.html. Accessed 12 Jan 2016
  12. 12.
    Fielding R, Gettys J, Mogul JC, Frystyk H, Masinter L, Leach P, Berners-Lee T (1999) Hypertext transfer protocol-HTTP/1.1. RFC 2616Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Floyd S, Handley M (2008) TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): protocol specification. RFC 5348Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Floyd S, Jacobson V (1993) Random early detection gateways for congestion avoidance. IEEE/ACM Trans Networking 1(4):397–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gstreamer (2015) Multimedia framework setup for adaptive HTTP Streaming player and experimentation. Available: https://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/index.html. Accessed 20 May 2015
  16. 16.
    Handley M, Floyd S, Padhye J, Widmer J (2003) TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol specification. RFC 3448Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Highchart library API. Available: http://api.highcharts.com/highcharts. Accessed 20 May 2015
  18. 18.
    HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) draft specification. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pantos-http-live-streaming-12
  19. 19.
    Huang T-Y, Johari R, McKeown N, Trunnell M, Watson M (2014) A buffer-based approach to rate adaptation: evidence from a large video streaming service. SIGCOMM 14:187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    International Organization for Standardization (2014) Technical specification: dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH), standard:ISO/IEC 23009-1:2014. Available: http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html. Accessed 20 May 2015
  21. 21.
    Jiang J, Sekar V, Zhang H (2012) Improving fairness, efficiency, and stability in HTTP-based adaptive video streaming with FESTIVE. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies (CoNEXT), pp 97–108Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Juluri P, Tamarapalli V, Medhi D (2015) SARA: Segment Aware Rate Adaptation algorithm for dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP. 2015 I.E. International Conference on Communication Workshop (ICCW), pp 1765–1770Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    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
  24. 24.
    Liu C, Bouazizi I, Gabbouj M (2011) Segment duration for rate adaptation of adaptive HTTP streaming. IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liu C, Bouazizi I, Gabbouj M (2011) Rate adaptation for adaptive HTTP streaming. ACM MMSys 2011 Special Session: Modern Media Transport, Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu C, Bouazizi I, Hannuksela MM, Gabbouj M (2012) Rate adaptation for dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP in content distribution network. Image Commun 27(4):288–311Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Luigi Rizzo (2015) Dummynet project live network emulation tool setup and configuration. Available: http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/dummynet/. Accessed 20 May 2015
  28. 28.
    Microsoft Smooth Streaming (MSS) technical specification. Available: https://www.iis.net/learn/media/on-demand-smooth-streaming/smooth-streaming-technicaloverview. Accessed 20 May 2015
  29. 29.
    Mulroy P (2006) Application layer QoS for video telephony. BT Technol J 24(2):167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nagy M (2012) Using FEC for rate adaptation of multimedia streams, Aalto University, Helsinki. Available: http://lib.tkk.fi/Dipl/2012/urn100656.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2015
  31. 31.
    Park J, Chung K (2015) Rate adaptation scheme for HTTP-based streaming to achieve fairness with competing TCP traffic. 2015 International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN). pp 222–226Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schulzrinne H, Casner S, Frederick R, Jacobson V (2003) Real time Transport Protocol (RTP). RFC 3550Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    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
  34. 34.
    Stevens W (1997) TCP slow start, congestion avoidance, fast retransmit, and fast recovery algorithms. RFC 2001Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wenger S (2003) H.264/AVC over IP. Proc IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 13(7):645–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wenger S, Chandra U (2008) Codec control messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF). RFC 5104, IETF Internet DraftGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wireshark (2015) Network protocol analyzer setup and experiementation procedure. Available: https://www.wireshark.org/develop.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2015
  38. 38.
    Wowza Streaming Engine (2015) Media streaming engine deployment and configuration for ondemand and live adaptive HTTP streaming. Available: https://www.wowza.com/products/streamingengine/deployment-options. Accessed 20 Dec 2015
  39. 39.
    Zhou C, Lin C-W, Zhang X, Guo Z (2013) Buffer-based smooth rate adaptation for dynamic HTTP streaming. IEEE Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference, pp 1–9Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical & Electronics EngineeringKarunya UniversityCoimbatoreIndia

Personalised recommendations