Advertisement

Reliability Enhanced Overlay Structure for Peer-to-Peer Video Streaming

  • B. Uma MaheswariEmail author
  • T. K. Ramesh
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies book series (LNDECT, volume 26)

Abstract

Nowadays, people using live video streaming applications in the Internet are gaining momentum. Client/server model is the simple way to provide video streaming to multiple users. However, this model is not attractive due to server overload/failure and not sharing the client resources. In contrast, Peer to Peer (P2P) approach offers an advantage of creating a self-organizing network. Each byte of data is very important, as these applications demand a high Quality of Service (QoS). Peer failure and/or link failure may cause an interruption in the video delivery. Hence creating a reliable overlay is the primary concern in the streaming system. In this paper, we propose reliability approaches named RA:1, RA:2, RA:3, RA:4, and RA:5 for a hybrid overlay consists of tree and mesh-clusters (MC), where Cluster Heads (CH) are connected to the leaf of the tree. We evaluate and analyze the performance of each approach in the presence of node and link failures and indicate the best among them. RA:5 uses 60.5% more additional connections than RA:1 approach, and it achieves the highest frame success ratio of 99.32%.

Keywords

Hybrid overlay Reliability Peer-to-peer Streaming 

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Diot, C., Levine, B., Lyles, B., Kassem, H., Balensiefen, D.: Deployment issues for the IP multicast service and architecture. IEEE Netw. 14, 78–88 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banerjee, S., Bhattacharjee, B., Kommareddy, C.: Scalable application layer multicast. In: ACM SIGCOMM, August 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tran, D.A., Hua, K., Do, T.: ZIGZAG: An efficient peer-to-peer scheme for media streaming. In: IEEE INFOCOM, vol. 2, pp. 1283–1292, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chu, Y.-H., Rao, S.G., Zhang, H.: A case for end system multicast. ACM Sigmetrics 20(8), 1456–1471 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Banerjee, S., Lee, S., Bhattacharjee, B., Srinivasan, A.: Resilient multicast using overlays. In: ACM SIGMETRICS, June 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huitema, C.:The case for packet level FEC. İn: IFIP 5th International Workshop Protocols High-Speed Networks, October 1996Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Byers, J.W., Luby, M., Mitzenmacher, M., Rege, A.: A digital fountain approach to reliable distribution of bulk data. In: ACM SIGCOMM, September 1998Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kunichika, Y., Katto, J., Okubo, S.: Application layer multicast with proactive route maintenance over redundant overlay trees. In: Aizawa, K., Nakamura, Y., Satoh, S. (eds.) Advances in Multimedia Information Processing—PCM 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3333. Springer, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang, F., Xiong, Y., Liu, J.: mTreebone: a collaborative tree-mesh overlay network for multicast video streaming. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 21, 379–392 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Uma Maheswari, B., Sudarshan, T.S.B.: An ECDD technique to optimize QoS in wireless overlay for multipath streaming. In: International Conference on Applied and Theoretical Computing and Communication Technology, Karnataka, pp. 29–31 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Uma Maheswari, B., Sudarshan, T.S.B.: Fenwick tree based capability-aware live multimedia streaming in sparse MANET. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 10, 12655–12670 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Uma Maheswari, B., Sudarshan, T.S.B.: Error resilient multipath video delivery on wireless overlay networks. Telecommun. Comput. Electron. Control 14(3), 894–903 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stoica, I., Morris, R., Karger, D., Kaashoek, M.F., Balakrishnan, H.: Chord: a scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for Internet applications. In: ACM SIGCOMM’01, pp. 149–160, San Diego, CA (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Castro, M., Druschel, P., Kermarrec, A.-M., Nandi, A., Rowstron, A., Singh, A.: SplitStream: high-bandwidth content distribution in a cooperative environment. In: Kaashoek, M.F., Stoica, I. (eds.) IPTPS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2735, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Padmanabhan, V., Wang, H., Chou, P., Sripanidkulchai, K.: Distributing streaming media content using cooperative networking. In: NOSSDAV, Miami Beach, FL, USA, May 2002Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Padmanabhan, V., Wang, H., Chou, P.: Resilient peer-to-peer streaming. In: IEEE ICNP, pp. 16–27 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Uma Maheswari, B., Sudarshan, T.S.B.: Reputation based mesh-tree-mesh cluster hybrid architecture for P2P live streaming. In: International Conference on Devices, Circuits and Systems (ICDCS 2016), pp. 240–233 (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    The Network Simulator ns-2. http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns. Accessed Jan 2016
  20. 20.
    Ke, C.H., Shieh, C.K., Hwang, W.S., Ziviani, A.: An Evaluation framework for more realistic simulations of MPEG video transmission. J. Inf. Sci. Eng. 24(2), 425–440 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Medina, A., Lakhina, A., Matta, I., Byers, J.W.: BRITE: an approach to universal topology generation. In: IEEE 9th International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    https://www.ffmpeg.org. Accessed June 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringAmrita School of Engineering, Bengaluru, Amrita Vishwa VidyapeethamBengaluruIndia
  2. 2.Department of Electronics and Communication EngineeringAmrita School of Engineering, Bengaluru, Amrita Vishwa VidyapeethamBengaluruIndia

Personalised recommendations