skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Adaptive Chunklets and AQM for Higher-Performance Content Streaming

Authors Info & Claims
Published:16 December 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Commercial streaming services such as Netflix and YouTube use proprietary HTTP-based adaptive streaming (HAS) techniques to deliver content to consumers worldwide. MPEG recently developed Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) as a unifying standard for HAS-based streaming. In DASH systems, streaming clients employ adaptive bitrate (ABR) algorithms to maximise user Quality of Experience (QoE) under variable network conditions. In a typical Internet-enabled home, video streams have to compete with diverse application flows for the last-mile Internet Service Provider (ISP) bottleneck capacity. Under such circumstances, ABR algorithms will only act upon the fraction of the network capacity that is available, leading to possible QoE degradation. We have previously explored chunklets as an approach orthogonal to ABR algorithms, which uses parallel connections for intra-video chunk retrieval. Chunklets effectively make more bandwidth available for ABR algorithms in the presence of cross-traffic, especially in environments where Active Queue Management (AQM) schemes such as Proportional Integral controller Enhanced (PIE) and FlowQueue-Controlled Delay (FQ-CoDel) are deployed. However, chunklets consume valuable server/middlebox resources which typically handle hundreds of thousands of requests/connections per second. In this article, we propose ‘adaptive chunklets’ -- a novel chunklet enhancement that dynamically tunes the number of concurrent connections. We demonstrate that the combination of adaptive chunklets and FQ-CoDel is the most effective strategy. Our experiments show that adaptive chunklets can reduce the number of connections by almost 30% and consume almost 8% less bandwidth than fixed chunklets while providing the same QoE.

References

  1. S. Akhshabi, L. Anantakrishnan, A. C. Begen, and C. Dovrolis. 2012. What happens when HTTP adaptive streaming players compete for bandwidth?. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Workshop on Network and Operating System Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV’12). ACM, 9--14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2229087.2229092Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. R. Al-Saadi and G. Armitage. 2016. Dummynet AQM v0.2 -- CoDel, FQ-CoDel, PIE and FQ-PIE for FreeBSD’s ipfw/dummynet framework. Technical Report 160418A. CAIA, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. http://caia.swin.edu.au/reports/160418A/CAIA-TR-160418A.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. R. Al-Saadi, G. Armitage, and J. But. 2015. ttprobe v0.1: Packet-Driven TCP Stack Statistics Gathering for TEACUP. Technical Report 150911A. CAIA, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. http://caia.swin.edu.au/reports/150911A/CAIA-TR-150911A.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. M. Ansari and M. Ghaderi. 2016. Parallel HTTP for video streaming in wireless networks. In IEEE 24th International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems (MASCOTS’16). IEEE, 337--342. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/MASCOTS.2016.63Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. G. Armitage and R. Collom. 2017. Benefits of flowqueue-based active queue management for interactive online games. In 26th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN’17). 1--9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCN.2017.8038400Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. G. Armitage, J. Kennedy, S. Nguyen, J. Thomas, and S. Ewing. 2017. Household Internet and the ‘Need for Speed’: Evaluating the Impact of Increasingly Online Lifestyles and the Internet of Things. Technical Report 170113A. CAIA, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. http://caia.swin.edu.au/reports/170113A/CAIA-TR-170113A.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. C. Bampis, Z. Li, I. Katsavounidis, T. Huang, C. Ekanadham, and A. Bovik. 2018. Towards perceptually optimized end-to-end adaptive video streaming. Arxiv E-prints, Article arXiv:1808.03898 (Aug 2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Bentaleb, A. C. Begen, S. Harous, and R. Zimmermann. 2018. Want to play DASH?: A game theoretic approach for adaptive streaming over HTTP. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys’18). ACM, 13--26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3204949.3204961Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. A. Bentaleb, B. Taani, A. C. Begen, C. Timmerer, and R. Zimmermann. 2019. A survey on bitrate adaptation schemes for streaming media over HTTP. IEEE Communications Surveys 8 Tutorials 21, 1, 562--585. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2018.2862938Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. E. Blanton, V. Paxson, and M. Allman. 2009. TCP Congestion Control. RFC 5681. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC5681Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. K. Brunnström and S. A. Beker et al. 2013. Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00977812 Fifth Qualinet meeting, Novi Sad, March 12, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Jon Crowcroft and Philippe Oechslin. 1998. Differentiated end-to-end Internet services using a weighted proportional fair sharing TCP. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 28, 3, 53--69. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/293927.293930Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. Gettys and K. Nichols. 2011. Bufferbloat: Dark buffers in the Internet. Queue 9, 11, 40:40--40:54. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2063166.2071893Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. T. Høeiland-Joergensen, P. McKenney, D. Taht, J. Gettys, and E. Dumazet. 2018. The Flow Queue CoDel Packet Scheduler and Active Queue Management Algorithm. RFC 8290. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC8290Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. T. Høiland-Jørgensen. 2018. Analyzing the latency of sparse flows in the FQ-CoDel queue management algorithm. IEEE Communications Letters 22, 11, 2266--2269. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/LCOMM.2018.2871457Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. T. Huang, N. Handigol, B. Heller, N. McKeown, and R. Johari. 2012. Confused, timid, and unstable: Picking a video streaming rate is hard. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC’12). ACM, 225--238. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2398776.2398800Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. T. Y. Huang, C. Ekanadham, A. Berglund, and Z. Li. 2019. Hindsight: Evaluate video bitrate adaptation at scale. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys’19). ACM, 86--97. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3304109.3306219Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. T. Y. Huang, R. Johari, N. McKeown, M. Trunnell, and M. Watson. 2014. A buffer-based approach to rate adaptation: Evidence from a large video streaming service. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on SIGCOMM (SIGCOMM’14). ACM, 187--198. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2619239.2626296Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. ISO/IEC. 2012. ISO/IEC 2309-1:2012 Information Technology: Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) Part 1: Media presentation description and segment formats. https://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/ catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=57623.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. J. Jiang, V. Sekar, and H. Zhang. 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’12). ACM, 97--108. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2413176.2413189Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. P. Juluri, V. Tamarapalli, and D. Medhi. 2015. SARA: Segment aware rate adaptation algorithm for dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP. In IEEE International Conference on Communication Workshop (ICCW’15). 1765--1770. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCW.2015.7247436Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. S. Shunmuga Krishnan and Ramesh K. Sitaraman. 2012. Video stream quality impacts viewer behavior: Inferring causality using quasi-experimental designs. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC’12). ACM, 211--224. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2398776.2398799Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. J. Kua and G. Armitage. 2017. Optimising DASH over AQM-enabled gateways using intra-chunk parallel retrieval (chunklets). In 26th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN’17). 1--9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCN.2017.8038403Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. J. Kua, G. Armitage, and P. Branch. 2016. The impact of active queue management on DASH-based content delivery. In IEEE 41st Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN’16). 121--128. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/LCN.2016.24Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. J. Kua, G. Armitage, and P. Branch. 2017. A survey of rate adaptation techniques for dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP. IEEE Communications Surveys 8 Tutorials 19, 3, 1842--1866. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2017.2685630Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. J. Kua, S. H. Nguyen, G. Armitage, and P. Branch. 2017. Using active queue management to assist IoT application flows in home broadband networks. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 4, 5, 1399--1407. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2017.2722683Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. R. Kuschnig, I. Kofler, and H. Hellwagner. 2010. Improving Internet video streaming performance by parallel TCP-based request-response streams. In 7th IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference. IEEE, 1--5. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/CCNC.2010.5421815Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Stefan Lederer, Christopher Müller, and Christian Timmerer. 2012. Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP dataset. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys’12). ACM, 89--94. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2155555.2155570Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. C. Liu, I. Bouazizi, and M. Gabbouj. 2011. Parallel adaptive HTTP media streaming. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN’11). 1--6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCN.2011.6005910Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. T. Maki, M. Varela, and D. Ammar. 2015. A layered model for quality estimation of HTTP video from QoS measurements. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Signal-Image Technology 8 Internet-Based Systems (SITIS’15). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 591--598. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/SITIS.2015.41Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. H. Mao, R. Netravali, and M. Alizadeh. 2017. Neural adaptive video streaming with pensieve. In Proceedings of the Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMM’17). ACM, 197--210. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3098822.3098843Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. R. Mok, E. Chan, X. Luo, and R. Chang. 2011. Inferring the QoE of HTTP video streaming from user-viewing activities. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Measurements Up the Stack (W-MUST’11). ACM, 31--36. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2018602.2018611Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Kathleen M. Nichols, Van Jacobson, Andrew McGregor, and Jana Iyengar. 2018. Controlled Delay Active Queue Management. RFC 8289. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC8289Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. R. Pan, P. Natarajan, F. Baker, and G. White. 2017. Proportional Integral Controller Enhanced (PIE): A Lightweight Control Scheme to Address the Bufferbloat Problem. RFC 8033. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC8033Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. M. Seufert, S. Egger, M. Slanina, T. Zinner, T. Hoßfeld, and P. Tran-Gia. 2015. A survey on quality of experience of HTTP adaptive streaming. IEEE Communications Surveys 8 Tutorials 17, 1, 469--492. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2014.2360940Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. K. Spiteri, R. Sitaraman, and D. Sparacio. 2018. From theory to practice: Improving bitrate adaptation in the DASH reference player. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys’18). ACM, 123--137. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3204949.3204953Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. K. Spiteri, R. Urgaonkar, and R. K. Sitaraman. 2016. BOLA: Near-optimal bitrate adaptation for online videos. In IEEE INFOCOM 2016 - The 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE, 1--9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOCOM.2016.7524428Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. L. Stewart, G. Armitage, and A. Huebner. 2009. Collateral damage: The impact of optimised TCP variants on real-time traffic latency in consumer broadband environments. In NETWORKING 2009. Springer, Berlin, 392--403.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. T. Stockhammer. 2011. Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP: Standards and design principles. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual ACM Conference on Multimedia Systems (MMSys’11). ACM, 133--144. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1943552.1943572Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. G. White and R. Pan. 2017. Active Queue Management (AQM) Based on Proportional Integral Controller Enhanced (PIE) for Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specifications (DOCSIS) Cable Modems. RFC 8034. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC8034Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. X. Yin, A. Jindal, V. Sekar, and B. Sinopoli. 2015. A control-theoretic approach for dynamic adaptive video streaming over HTTP. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMM’15). ACM, 325--338. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2785956.2787486Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. S. Zander and G. Armitage. 2013. Minimally-intrusive frequent round trip time measurements using synthetic packet pairs. In 38th IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN’13). IEEE, 264–267. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/LCN.2013.6761245Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. S. Zander and G. Armitage. 2015. TEACUP v1.0 - A System for Automated TCP Testbed Experiments. Technical Report 150529A. CAIA, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. http://caia.swin.edu.au/reports/150529A/CAIA-TR-150529A.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Adaptive Chunklets and AQM for Higher-Performance Content Streaming

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in

              Full Access

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader

              HTML Format

              View this article in HTML Format .

              View HTML Format
              About Cookies On This Site

              We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

              Learn more

              Got it!