Advertisement

User requirements and resource control for cooperative multimedia applications

  • Marco Alfano
Internet and Multimedia
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1242)

Abstract

The spread of distributed multimedia applications is setting forth a new set of challenges in the management of host and network resources for guaranteeing Quality of Service (QoS). When the multimedia applications compete for resources as in the case of a cooperative multimedia environment, the management task becomes even more difficult. In this work, we first discuss QoS for multimedia applications. We then present the architectural and implementation details of a Cooperative Multimedia Environment (CME) made up of Cooperative Multimedia Applications (COMMA), one for each user. A COMMA presents a user with a single interface that allows him to invite other users to a cooperative session, select the media services to be used in the session, and specify his Quality of Service (QoS) requirements for the media services throughout the session.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    M. Alfano et al. Management of cooperative multimedia sessions with QoS requirements. Proc. of IEEE Gigabit Networking Workshop GBN '96, San Francisco, March 1996.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Alfano, R. Sigle. Controlling QoS in a collaborative multimedia environment. Proc. of the Fifth IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Distributed Computing (HPDC-5), Syracusae, August 1996.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. Alfano, N. Radouniklis. A cooperative environment with QoS control: Architectural and implementation issues. ICSI Technical Report TR-96-040, September 1996.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    D.P. Anderson. Metascheduling for continuous media. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, vol. 11, pp. 226–252, August 1993.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. Basso et al. Study of MPEG-2 coding performance based on a perceptual quality metric. Proc. PCS 96, Melbourne, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    D. Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP, 2nd Edition, Volume I, Principles, Protocols, and Architecture, PTR Prentice Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    W.R. Daumer. Subjective evaluation of several efficient speech coders. IEEE Trans. on Communications, pp. 655–662, April 1982.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    G. Dermler et al. A Negotiation and Resource Reservation Protocol (NPR) for Configurable Multimedia Applications. Online Publ., http://www.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/ipvr/vs/vs_publikationen.html# 1995-dermler-01, November 1995.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    D. Ferrari, A. Banerjea and H. Zhang. Network Support for Multimedia — A Discussion of the Tenet Approach. Computer Networks and ISDN System, vol. 26, pp. 1267–1280, July 1994.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Hughes Technologies, Mini SQL: A Lightweight Database Engine, Online Manual, Release 1.1, http://Hughes.com.au/product/msql/ manual.htm, January 1996.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    ISO/IEC 9075: Information Technology — Database Languages — SQL, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    ITU-R Recom. BT.500.7. Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    V. Jacobson and S. McCanne. vat — LBNL Audio Conferencing Tool. On line description, http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/vat/.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    V. Jacobson and S. McCanne. wb — LBNL Whiteboard Tool. Online description, http://www-nrg.ee. lbl.gov/wb.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    B. Kernighan, D. Ritchie, The C Programming Language, 2nd Edition, PTR Prentice Hall, 1988.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Lucent Technologies. Multimedia Communication Exchange Server (MMCX), Online description, http://www.lucent.com/BusinessWorks/olc/product/mmcx.html.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    S. McCanne and V. Jacobson. vic: A flexible framework for packet video. Proc. of ACM Multimedia'95, pp. 511–522, San Francisco, November 1995.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    K. Motomura et al. Management integration technologies. NTT Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 66–74, March 1995.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    K. Nahrstedt and J.M. Smith, The QoS Broker. IEEE Multimedia Vol. 2, No.1, pp. 53–67, Spring 1995.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    J.K. Ousterhout. Tcl and the Tk Toolkit. Addison-Wesley. 1994.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    E. Schooler, Case Study: Multimedia Conference Control in a Packet-switched Teleconferencing System, Journal of Internetworking: Research and Experience, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 99–120, June 1993.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    L.C. Schreier and M.B. Davis. System-level resource management for network-based multimedia applications. Proc. NOSSDAV'95, Durham, April 1995.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    H. Schulzrinne. Dynamic Configuration of Conferencing Applications using Pattern-Matching Multicast. Proc. of NOSSDAV'95, Durham, April 1995.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    H. Schulzrinne et al. RTP: A transport protocol for real-time applications. IETF RFC 1889. January 1996.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    W.C. Treurniet and L. Thibault. Perceval — A model for objective perceptual assessment of audio. On line publication, http://www.crc.doc.ca:80/crc/branches/DRB/list.html.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    C.J. van den Branden Lambrecht and O. Verscheure. Perceptual quality measure using a spatio-temporal model of the human visual system. Proc. SPIE Int.l Symp. on Visual Communications and Image Processing '96, Orlando, March 1996.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    L. Zhang et al. RSVP: A new ReSerVation Protocol. IEEE Network, vol. 7, pp. 8–18, September 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Alfano
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Computer Science Department of MathematicsUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations