Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)
Multicast on Peer-to-Peer live media streaming
Trường: CÔNG TRÌNH DỰ THI GIẢI THƯỞNG “SINH VIÊN NGHIÊN CỨU KHOA HỌC” NĂM 2012 Tên công trình: Họ và tên sinh viên!"#$ Nam, Nữ: Lớp:%&'( Khoa:%) Người hướng dẫn:*+"#) Trường Đại học Công nghệ CỘNG HÒA XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM Khoa Khoa học máy tính Độc lập – Tự do – Hạnh phúc ," ./'0-/1- Kính gửi: Hội đồng xét Giải thưởng “Sinh viên Nghiên cứu Khoa học”, Trường Đại học Công nghệ )2345!"#$ 6"!1&71-7188/ 9:;!%&'( %!%."< 6=3=>, =5!/1?8@18@118 >AB! CD&'E+ + 62>.F=FF;<G!3H. =FF;I;JK==L"5 )345=M"N<=L>OA=345 =IP QG2$N=R STJIUV6 2 2$%W0-/1- )2=L! )345X==Y"G <345S I:SI: Z[*+"#),N;JNF\ ;+H,345X>.I:I]+ Xác nhận của giáo viên hướng dẫn Người làm đơn 3%^K25 3%^K25 Abstraction);;;" T ;_ ;+`;_ ;; " ;a;; ;"b "; c _ c +c," X ; ;"d c , aa _c ","c, " + )dc;;"_ ;; ,_";;"_ ;c ";;Na__" ;;N_+O" c X;; ;;"_ ;; " ;_ ;+e,c"c" ;"a"c "+ I. Introduction: c; c a! a ;;a+_ ; f, _;;_"aa _+Oc;"ac ,;; c C ; C"a+ ),;;cN ; ,N cN " _ c a , ;; cN b _ c a _ cN+ 6 ;; " _ ; , ;, g, c, *h76,ieBja ; _ _ ;+)b_ c ;"-," ; ;-ca" ;,c _";;"; _c " + e , c c _ ;; " T ; _" a+ g a ) `", Ok, + T "_ _" c ,_X;,_ _ a)l_ TBa6;m -//&e,c&//,/// c k" + h"-// " c, C'//%_; + II. Peer to Peer network & Peer to Peer media streaming system: 1. Peer to Peer network: -cN cc c;;+(-cN_ 3;a; `6O af5(-cN_;aN a b;af;;c+h-cN_ cN c;; ;;; ;e+ )a-cN_ac ;" "18@/aa +eaa ", l6"an9_e+,n ;c ; ;; _a; f ,c a _ `+)_X _ ;;,c" _ ;" N; _ac_ N a+ "cNa_ _" N;+O " c"f ;+)_c ff;;" N " N ; _" af+ eaa," +)o ; cN ;" _;; ; ;;N "3;b _ cc5+ e - , _" ; + mX;,a`(o ;`Oc ,`(c35;+6", a`Oca f,; , `(o,`(_f+(a ; af-cN_a _";c + 2. Peer to Peer Media streaming system: )k aa_c;;" ; ; " ;! ap;a c d ,cp;" c c d + ;q", ;; ",_a;c q, " q C;+h ,C;;"_N , "_;;";a qa+ ma;; ",f _";;",cC;; "! • m, ;; " ac+ n C;_;;";,"d;" c_;q ! _a;, ;"c+ • 6 ,;; "+(; ;; X_N_,; _acN+)";_ "acN3; cN5+)a,;ca;;" _a;;;, ;"a ;+ • ) ,;;; " _ c _" ;", _ _ c _"+ )""_ aa cN3B,X*69,_ , e6*5 ;_N_r "_ 7 _ _ c a;+)"", cN"3a(*695, "ca;!c; _ _ c ;;, aaa_ _ c ; ; ;+ • m", ;; , ;;" ;7C;";";, a ;;"+) a ;d" _ _ c aa+ 6;;_ _ c aa _" ;;";c 7;"_Na 1+ e ; C;,";;;"; ;;,c_ c aa ; +(cm13_5,;;"; c_a rcC;c "b a;"_N+ II. The iGridMedia: 1. Pull-based protocol: )aT ";_ ;;;" "cN+n " ;;+(cNc b; 3i5 ;" a "+ ( ;, ;; fia;a " ", ;cNac _ "b ci+);; c " _+O",;; c _, _ a c +ea_a Ca, c_ a__+6 "_+ (a " cN _, ;Nb fX ;N ;NN _"C _+ ", __aa;;Nc c;N_aa+( _aa; ;N c C;Na_; "+ ( ;N ; ;N, _aa;;N,C;N ;Na"+ ); ; C;N C , N _ a _ ;N Cc c+)Cc c ac c ;NcXC_ Nc _aa;a_+)_aabCc c b+ea;N 3a;"_N 5c _C +ea;_;N,;Nc_ a_ +m ;N aC_,_C_" C Cc c+O", ;Nc_Caa;a c + %" ; a _ ; _a ;N3`*a;f5+O,ac),c _aaa)N", _" _ c ,) _aacfc ;N ;; + O"`*,c c;N ;; +e;_ ;, Ca _,c C ;Nc_X" aC+ea X ; ;" _ c , ;Nc_ ;; " _ cC_"_+n c aC ;Na ;, C , ca; ; Ca ;N+ • Simulation result: )aaa;_ ;;; ", c ; _" *+ g, ;-; +); ss a +e;-;, ;N _aa a" +("X c "+) "t8+) a_a 1////+n; ;;"X+ ) a c 3 u/_"7;N 5'//N_;+n__" 3;N5+*a_a_a -/ aCc cb-/ + *a; ;" a -_;+);; c ;" ' aaN a *69 + ) ; ; 1_;, '@u%_;, 1-@ %_;, c ; '_;,1+&_;,t?@%_;+ )fc _,; , ; ;" ; ;";;"+nc ;";;""1+'ac3'//%_;5, ;_ ;; "; ;"+( c;" ;;" 1+1&ac,c ; "; ;",c;" a"b + [...]... protocol on it with some changes, the node will pull streaming packets only from its parent Beside it will only send the buffer maps and push the streaming packets to its children This network will have least number of edges and also the price to maintain the topology • Simulation result: Simulation on p2pstrmsim simulation with same setting and 400 online nodes shows not a good result with low delivery... Fullconnected graph, The Multicast over Boundary Tree method, and the Small world method 1 The Full-connected graph In this topology, all peers in systems will have connections to each other That makes the number of connection pushed to maximum, each peer have every other peers as neighbors This topology does not show good effort, the huge number of connections, of neighbors lead to giant number of control... bandwidth has effect on the delivery ratio, when the server is over 400Kbps (about 1.3 times of 300Kbps raw streaming rate) pull-push protocol can reach nearly 100% packet delivered, and it took over 600Kbps server bandwidth to provide the same in pull-based protocol The above simulations have proved that the pull-based hybrid protocol has provided much better environment for the media streaming network... minimum total bandwidth demand • The server bandwidth it consumes is only one time streaming rate so that any home user can broadcast their video with quality as high as they can • Can achieve minimum play-back delay under peer churn, with optimized peer selection and streaming scheduling • We can see that pull-push and pull-based protocol have done very well at high video quality with low number of total... will be connected together through at least 6 edges The small-world model introduced by Watts and Strogatz start with a chordal ring in which n nodes are placed on a circle and connected with their k clockwise next neighbors With probability p every edge can be rewired once The rewiring is done by choosing uniformly at random a new target node, such that the old edge is removed and the new one connects... problem of pull-based protocol is the tradeoff between control overhead and playback delay Pull-push hybrid protocol not only has much lower delay but also require very little bandwidth for the control packets, while it still keeps the best of pull-based protocol in nearly utilizing the upload capacity 3 Limitation of Pull-push protocol: For an idea media streaming system we have 3 main features: It can satisfy... with n=3, g= 3 In the pull-push protocol media streaming delivery, when a peer first join the network, it first selects it neighbors After that, it requires buffer map packets from those neighbors Once it received the buffer map packets and scheduling was finished, it pull streaming packets from those chosen neighbors according to the packets that available on the buffer map But unlike the pull-based... unlike the pull-based protocol where packets will be requested like that continuously until the end of streaming or the peer live the network, once a packet in packet group 0 in one packet party is requested by the node successful from a neighbor, the peer will send that neighbor a subscribe packet That packet is like a registration from the current peer to its neighbor, to require that neighbor to automatically... from its neighbors again To deal with the situation that the pushed streaming packets not arrived successfully to the peer due to packet lost or bandwidth limitation, that packet will be pulled from one neighbors after a waiting time out Usually, there are redundant packets due to the asynchrony between sender and receiver We evaluate it in the simulation and experiment In pull-push protocol, each node... number with only 1.3 times of raw streaming rate) The best delivery ratio provided with request interval around 600 to 800 and the capacity supply ratio is about 1.2 to 1.3 times of raw streaming rate This figure shows the average delivery ratio with the impact of request interval and request window size (capacity supply ratio is set to 1.2).While, the request window size is small, the average delivery