Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches

224

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
224
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Distributing Layered Encoded Video through Caches J. Kangasharju, F. Hartanto, M. Ressiein and Keith W. Ross Presented by Felix Lam
  • 2. Introduction
    • Web caching/Proxy
      • Efficient distribution of web objects
    • Challenges of streaming media caching
      • Require much larger storage
      • Consume much higher bandwidth for a much longer time
  • 3. Introduction
    • Problem
      • Which layer(s) of which movie(s) should be cached to maximize the revenue when both the cache size and the network bandwidth is limited .
  • 4. System Model
    • Assumptions
      • Only complete layers of video objects are cached
      • Cache access bandwidth (e.g. disk access speed) is not a bottleneck
      • Clients would not choose more layers than its access bandwidth can afford
  • 5. System Model
    • Notations
    R ( j , m ): Revenue of serving j -quality of movie m c m :# of layers of movie m cached G : Total cache storage C : Total bottleneck link bandwidth M : # of movies L : # of layers per movie T ( m ): Movie length (in sec.) of movie m r l ( m ): Effective bandwidth of layer l of movie m p ( j,m ): Popularity of the j -quality (quality of receiving layers 1 to j ) of movie m
  • 6. System Model
    • Procedures for handling a request
      • A client requests a j -quality stream of video m .
      • If c m >= j , all requested layers are streamed from the proxy.
      • If c m < j , the proxy attempts to connect to the origin server for streaming the missing c m +1 to j layers.
      • If NOT sufficient available bandwidth, the request is consider to be blocked.
  • 7. Optimal Caching
    • Let λ be the Poisson arrival rate of request
    • The expected total rate of revenue is:
    • B c ( j , m ) is the blocking probability of the request for a j -quality stream of video m, given the cache configuration c = (c 1 ,…,c M )
    • B c ( j , m ) is calculated by Stochastic Knapsack model
  • 8. Optimal Caching
    • Optimization
      • max c R ( c ) subject to S ( c )<= G
      • Analytically intractable
      • Exhaustive search space is too large for large M and L
  • 9. Utility Heuristics
    • Assign a utility ( u l,m ) to each of the ML layer objects
    • Cache the layer objects in decreasing order or u l,m until no more layer can be put into the cache
  • 10. Performance Evaluation
    • Default System Settings
      • M = 1000
      • L = 2
      • Rate of each layer ~ U(0.1Mbps, 3Mbps)
      • T ( m ) : Exponentially distributed with mean equals 3600 seconds
      • The requested video and quality us Zipf distributed with ζ = 1.0
      • λ = 10.8 requests / second
  • 11. Performance Evaluation
    • Comparison of Heuristics to exhaustive search in small problem
  • 12. Performance Evaluation
    • Comparison of different utility functions
  • 13. Performance Evaluation
    • Impact of cache size and link capacity
  • 14. Performance Evaluation
    • Effect of Zipf-parameter
  • 15. Performance Evaluation
    • Revenue gain by renegotiation of stream quality
  • 16. Performance Evaluation
    • Revenue gain from queuing requests
  • 17. Conclusion
    • Formulated an analytical stochastic model for the layered video caching problem.
    • Effective Utility Heuristics
    • Shows little gain from renegotiation and queuing of requests
  • 18. Comment
    • Lack of comparison with some traditional caching schemes used in web caching
    • The cost difference of link capacity and storage is not accounted
    • Using revenue per admitted streaming request in determining the cache allocation is very sensible and practical

×