coopnet: cooperative networking
Post on 08-Jan-2018
219 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1
CoopNet: Cooperative Networking
Phil Chou, Venkat Padmanabhan, Helen Wang
September 17, 2002
2
Motivation• “Flash crowd” can overwhelm server
– often due to news event of widespread interest…– … but not always (e.g., Webcast of birthday party)– can affect relatively obscure sites (e.g.,
election.dos.state.fl.us, firestone.com, nbaa.org)– affects Web content as well as streaming content
(live and on-demand)– infrastructure-based CDNs aren’t for everyone
• Goal: solve the flash crowd problem!
3
Cooperative Networking
• CoopNet complements client-server system– Client-server operation in normal times– P2P content distribution invoked on demand to alleviate server
overload– Clients participate only while interested in the content– Server still plays a critical role
Client-server Pure peer-to-peer CoopNet
4
Research Activities• Web flash crowd alleviation (with Kay
Sripanidkulchai)– evaluation using Sep 11 traces from MSNBC– prototype implementation done– paper @ IPTPS ’02
• MDC-based streaming media distribution– evaluation using Sep 11 traces from MSNBC,
Akamai, Digital Island– implementation in progress– paper @ NOSSDAV ’02– patent process in progress– initial discussions with Digital Media Division
5
Research Activities (contd.)• PeerMetric (with Karthik Lakshminarayanan)
– characterize broadband network performance– P2P as well as client-server performance– working with Xbox Online (Mark VanAntwerp)– deployment on ~25 distributed nodes underway– eventual deployment on ~300 Xbox Live beta users
• Future directions– CoopNet in a Wireless Mesh Network– good synergy: saves Internet bandwidth, improves
robustness
6
Robustness of Live Streaming• Peers are not dedicated servers
potential disruption due to:– node departures and failures– higher priority traffic
• Traditional ALM is not sufficient
7
Traditional Application-level Multicast
8
CoopNet Approach to Robustness
• Multiple description coding (MDC)• Multiple, diverse distribution trees
9
Multiple Description Coding
• Unlike layered coding, there isn’t an ordering of the descriptions• Every subset of descriptions must be decodable• Modest penalty relative to layered coding
MDC Layered coding
10
Multiple Description Coding• Simple MDC:
– every Mth frame forms a description
• More sophisticated MDC combines: – layered coding – Reed-Solomon coding – priority encoded
transmission – optimized bit allocation
11
Multiple Distribution Trees
12
Tree Management• Goals:
– short and wide trees– efficiency– diversity– quick join and leave processing– scalability
• CoopNet approach: centralized protocol anchored at the server
13
Centralized Tree Management
• Basic protocol– nodes inform server of their arrival/departure– server tracks node capacity and tells new nodes
where to join– each node monitors its packet loss rate and takes
action when the loss rate becomes too high– simple, should scale to 1000+ joins/leaves per sec.
• Optimizations– delay coordinates to estimate node proximity
(à la GeoPing)– achieving efficiency and diversity– migrate “stable” nodes to a higher level in the tree
14
Achieving Efficiency and Diversity
S
Supernode
SEA NY
SF
15
MDC versus SDC
Based on MSNBC traces from Sep 11
16
Break Points
CoopNet Transport ArchitectureGOF
ParseEmbedded Stream
RD Curve
Optimize(M, p(m))
Packetize
RS EncoderServer
Internet
ZSF
GOF(quality depends on # descriptions received)
Depacketize Embedded Stream
(truncated)
Reformat Decode
RS DecoderClient
Render
M descriptions
m≤ M descriptions
17
Summary• Robustness is the key challenge• MDC with multiple distribution trees
improves robustness in peer-to-peer media streaming
• Centralized tree management is efficient and can scales
18
Current Activity• CoopNet media streaming system is
being built• Evaluation:
– adaptability– server scalability– media stream quality– overhead in MDC and control protocol
• Dealing with client heterogeneity– combine MDC with layering
19
Issues• Firewall and NAT traversal• Digital Right Management issues• ISP pricing policies• Enterprise scenarios
20
Quality During Multiple Failures
21
Quality During Single Failure
top related