Multimedia cloud computing


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Multimedia cloud computing

  1. 1. [Wenwu Zhu, Chong Luo, Jianfeng Wang, and Shipeng Li] [An emerging technology for providing multimedia services and applications] © BRAND X PICTURES & INGRAM PUBLISHINGT his article introduces the principal concepts of and graphics processing unit (GPU) clusters are presented at multimedia cloud computing and presents a novel the edge to provide distributed parallel processing and QoS framework. We address multimedia cloud comput- adaptation for various types of devices. Then we present a cloud- ing from multimedia-aware cloud (media cloud) aware multimedia, which addresses how multimedia services and cloud-aware multimedia (cloud media) per- and applications, such as storage and sharing, authoring andspectives. First, we present a multimedia-aware cloud, which mashup, adaptation and delivery, and rendering and retrieval,addresses how a cloud can perform distributed multimedia pro- can optimally utilize cloud-computing resources to achievecessing and storage and provide quality of service (QoS) provi- better quality of experience (QoE). The research directions andsioning for multimedia services. To achieve a high QoS for problems encountered are presented accordingly.multimedia services, we propose a media-edge cloud (MEC)architecture, in which storage, central processing unit (CPU), INTRODUCTION Cloud computing is an emerging technology aimed at providingDigital Object Identifier 10.1109/MSP.2011.940269 various computing and storage services over the Internet [1],Date of publication: 19 April 2011 [2]. It generally incorporates infrastructure, platform, and1053-5888/11/$26.00©2011IEEE IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING MAGAZINE [59] MAY 2011
  2. 2. software as services. Cloud ser- For multimedia computing in MULTIMEDIA PROCESSING IN A CLOUDvice providers rent data-center a cloud, simultaneous bursts ofhardware and software to deliver IMPOSES GREAT CHALLENGES. multimedia data access, process-storage and computing services ing, and transmission in thethrough the Internet. By using cloud computing, Internet users cloud would create a bottleneck in a general-purpose cloudcan receive services from a cloud as if they were employing a because of stringent multimedia QoS requirements and largesuper computer. They can store their data in the cloud instead amounts of users’ simultaneous accesses at the Internet scale.of on their own devices, making ubiquitous data access possible. In today’s cloud computing, the cloud uses a utilitylike mecha-They can run their applications on much more powerful cloud- nism to allocate how much computing (e.g., CPU) and storagecomputing platforms with software deployed in the cloud, miti- resources one needs, which is very effective for general data ser-gating the users’ burden of full software installation and vices. However, for multimedia applications, in addition to thecontinual upgrade on their local devices. CPU and storage requirements, another very important factor is With the development of Web 2.0, Internet multimedia is the QoS requirement in terms of bandwidth, delay, and jitter.emerging as a service. To provide rich media services, Therefore, using a general-purpose cloud in the Internet to dealmultimedia computing has emerged as a noteworthy technolo- with multimedia services may suffer from unacceptable mediagy to generate, edit, process, and search media contents, such QoS or QoE [3]. Mobile devices have limitations in memory,as images, video, audio, graphics, and so on. For multimedia computing power, and battery life; thus, they have even moreapplications and services over the Internet and mobile wireless prominent needs to use a cloud to address the tradeoff betweennetworks, there are strong demands for cloud computing computation and communication. It is foreseen that cloud com-because of the significant amount of computation required for puting could become a disruptive technology for mobile appli-serving millions of Internet or mobile users at the same time. cations and services [4]. More specifically, in mobile mediaIn this new cloud-based multimedia-computing paradigm, applications and services, because of the power requirement forusers store and process their multimedia application data in multimedia [5] and the time-varying characteristics of the wire-the cloud in a distributed manner, eliminating full installation less channels, QoS requirements in cloud computing for mobileof the media application software on the users’ computer or multimedia applications and services become more stringentdevice and thus alleviating the burden of multimedia software than those for the Internet cases. In summary, for multimediamaintenance and upgrade as well as sparing the computation computing in a cloud, the key is how to provide QoS provision-of user devices and saving the battery of mobile phones. ing and support for multimedia applications and services over Multimedia processing in a cloud imposes great challenges. the (wired) Internet and mobile Internet.Several fundamental challenges for multimedia computing in To meet multimedia’s QoS requirements in cloud comput-the cloud are highlighted as follows. ing for multimedia services over the Internet and mobile wire- 1) Multimedia and service heterogeneity: As there exist dif- less networks, we introduce the principal concepts of ferent types of multimedia and services, such as voice over multimedia cloud computing for multimedia computing and IP (VoIP), video conferencing, photo sharing and editing, communications, shown in Figure 1. Specifically, we propose multimedia streaming, image search, image-based render- a multimedia-cloud-computing framework that leverages ing, video transcoding and adaptation, and multimedia con- cloud computing to provide multimedia applications and ser- tent delivery, the cloud shall support different types of vices over the Internet and mobile Internet with QoS provi- multimedia and multimedia services for millions of users sioning. We address multimedia cloud computing from simultaneously. multimedia-aware cloud (media cloud) and cloud-aware mul- 2) QoS heterogeneity: As different multimedia services have timedia (cloud media) perspectives. A multimedia-aware cloud different QoS requirements, the cloud shall provide QoS pro- focuses on how the cloud can provide QoS provisioning for visioning and support for various types of multimedia servic- multimedia applications and services. Cloud-aware multime- es to meet different multimedia QoS requirements. dia focuses on how multimedia can perform its content stor- 3) Network heterogeneity: As different networks, such as age, processing, adaptation, rendering, and so on, in the cloud Internet, wireless local area network (LAN), and third genera- to best utilize cloud-computing resources, resulting in high tion wireless network, have different network characteristics, QoE for multimedia services. Figure 2 depicts the relationship such as bandwidth, delay, and jitter, the cloud shall adapt of the media cloud and cloud media services. More specifically, multimedia contents for optimal delivery to various types of the media cloud provides raw resources, such as hard disk, devices with different network bandwidths and latencies. CPU, and GPU, rented by the media service providers (MSPs) 4) Device heterogeneity: As different types of devices, such to serve users. MSPs use media cloud resources to develop as TVs, personal computers (PCs), and mobile phones, have their multimedia applications and services, e.g., storage, edit- different capabilities for multimedia processing, the cloud ing, streaming, and delivery. shall have multimedia adaptation capability to fit different On the media cloud, we propose an MEC architecture to types of devices, including CPU, GPU, display, memory, reduce latency, in which media contents and processing are storage, and power. pushed to the edge of the cloud based on user’s context or IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING MAGAZINE [60] MAY 2011
  3. 3. Audio Video Image Media Cloud Storage CPU GPU Clients[FIG1] Fundamental concept of multimedia cloud computing.profile. In this architecture, an MEC is a cloudlet with data multimedia computing over grids addresses infrastructurecenters physically placed at the edge. The MEC stores, process- computing for multimedia from a high-performance comput-es, and transmits media data at the edge, thus achieving a ing (HPC) aspect [7]. The CDN addresses how to deliver multi-shorter delay. The media cloud is composed of MECs, which media at the edge so as to reduce the delivery latency orcan be managed in a centralized or peer-to-peer (P2P) manner. maximize the bandwidth for the clients to access the data.First, to better handle various types of media services in an Examples include Akamai Technologies, Amazon CloudFront,MEC, we propose to place similar types of media services into and Limelight Networks. YouTube uses Akamai’s CDN to deliv-a cluster of servers based on the properties of media services. er videos. Server-based multimedia computing addresses desk-Specifically, we propose to use the distributed hash table (DHT top computing, in which all multimedia computing is done in[6]) for data storage while using CPU or GPU clusters for mul- a set of servers, and the client interacts only with the serverstimedia computing. Second, for computing efficiency in the [8]. Examples include Microsoft Remote Display Protocol andMEC, we propose a distributed parallel processing model for AT&T Virtual Network Computing. P2P multimedia comput-multimedia applications and services in GPU or CPU clusters. ing refers to a distributed application architecture that parti-Third, at the proxy/edge server of the MEC, we propose media tions multimedia-computing tasks or workloads betweenadaptation/transcoding for media services to heterogeneous peers. Examples include Skype, PPlive, and Coolstream. Thedevices to achieve high QoE. media cloud presented in this article addresses how the cloud On cloud media, media applications and services in the can provide QoS provisioning for multimedia computing in acloud can be conducted either completely or partially in the cloud In the former case, the cloud willdo all the multimedia computing, e.g., forthe case of thin-client mobile phones. In Cloud Mediathe latter case, the key problem is how to Authoring/Editing Sharing/Streamingallocate multimedia-computing (e.g., Service ServiceCPU and GPU) resources between the cli- Storage Service Delivery Serviceents and cloud, which will involve client– MSPscloud resource partition for multimediacomputing. In this article, we presenthow multimedia applications, such as Media Cloudprocessing, adaptation, rendering, and soon, can optimally utilize cloud-comput- Hard Disk Resource Allocatoring resources to achieve high QoE. CPURELATED WORKS Load Balancer GPUMultimedia cloud computing is general-ly related to multimedia computing overgrids, content delivery network (CDN),server-based computing, and P2P multi-media computing. More specifically, [FIG2] The relationship of the media cloud and cloud media services. IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING MAGAZINE [61] MAY 2011
  4. 4. To our knowledge, there compared to all multimedia MULTIMEDIA CLOUD COMPUTINGexist very few works on multi- contents that are located at themedia cloud computing in the IS GENERALLY RELATED TO central cloud. As depicted inliterature. IBM had an initiative MULTIMEDIA COMPUTING OVER Figure 3(a) and (b), respective-for cloud computing (http:// GRIDS, CONTENT DELIVERY NETWORK, ly, an MEC has two types ofw w w. i b m . c o m / i b m / c l o u d / SERVER-BASED COMPUTING, AND P2P architectures: one is where allresources.html#3). Trajkovska MULTIMEDIA COMPUTING. users’ media data are stored inet al. proposed a joint P2P and MECs based on their user pro-cloud-computing architecture file or context, while all therealization for multimedia streaming with QoS cost information of the associated users and content locations isfunctions [9]. communicated by its head through P2P; the other one is where the central administrator (master) maintains all theMULTIMEDIA-AWARE CLOUD information of the associated users and content locations,The media cloud needs to have the following functions: 1) QoS while the MEC distributedly holds all the content data.provisioning and support for various types of multimedia servic- Within an MEC, we adopt P2P technology for distributedes with different QoS requirements, 2) distributed parallel mul- media data storage and computing. With the P2P architec-timedia processing, and 3) multimedia QoS adaptation to fit ture, each node is equally important and, thus, the MEC is ofvarious types of devices and network bandwidth. In this section, high scalability, availability, and robustness for media datawe first present the architecture of the media cloud. Then we storage and media computing. To support mobile users, wediscuss the distributed parallel multimedia processing in the propose a cloud proxy that resides at the edge of an MEC ormedia cloud and how the cloud can provide QoS support for in the gateway, as depicted in Figure 3(a) and (b), to performmultimedia applications and services. multimedia processing (e.g., adaptation and transcoding) and caching to compensate for mobile devices’ limitations onMEDIA-CLOUD-COMPUTING computational power and battery life.ARCHITECTUREIn this section, we present an MEC-computing architecture DISTRIBUTED PARALLELthat aims at handling multimedia computing from a QoS per- MULTIMEDIA PROCESSINGspective. An MEC is a cloudlet with servers physically placed Traditionally, multimedia processing is conducted on client orat the edge of a cloud to provide media services with high proprietary servers. With multimedia cloud computing, multi-QoS (e.g., low latency) to users. Note that an MEC architec- media processing is usually on the third party’s cloud data cen-ture is like the CDN edge servers architecture, with the differ- ters (unless one likes building a private cloud, which is costly).ence being that CDN is for multimedia delivery, while MEC is With multimedia processing moved to the cloud, one of thefor multimedia computing. Using CDN edge servers to deliver key challenges of multimedia cloud computing is how themultimedia to the end users can result in less latency than cloud can provide distributed parallel processing of multime-direct delivery from the original servers at the center. Thus, it dia data for millions of users including mobile users. Tocan be seen that multimedia computing in an MEC can pro- address this problem, multimedia storage and computing needduce less multimedia traffic and reduce latency when to be executed in a distributed and parallel manner. In the MEC MEC MEC MEC Head Head Virtual Center Cloud Master MEC Head Head MEC MEC MEC MEC HeadMEC Proxy Proxy (a) (b)[FIG3] Architecture of (a) P2P-based MEC computing and (b) central-controlled MEC computing. IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING MAGAZINE [62] MAY 2011
  5. 5. MEC, we propose to use DHT for media data storage in thestorage cluster and employ multimedia processing program Storage Clusterparallel execution model with a media load balancer for mediacomputing in CPU or GPU clusters. As illustrated in Figure Data4(a), for media storage, we assign unique keys associated with MSPdata to the data tracker, which manages how media data will Trackerbe distributed in the storage cluster. For media computing, we CPU Clusteruse the program tracker or the so-called load balancer to Clients Programschedule media tasks distributedly, and then the media tasksare executed in CPU or GPU clusters in the MEC. Moreover, we Trackeruse parallel distributed multimedia processing for large-scalemultimedia program execution in an MEC, as illustrated inFigure 4(b). Specifically, first, we can perform media load bal-ancing at the users’ level [10]. Second, we can do parallelmedia processing at the multimedia task level. In other words,our proposed approach not only brings distributed load balanc- GPU Clustering at users’ levels but also performs multimedia task parallel-ization at the multimedia task levels. This is demonstrated in (a)the following case study. …..CASE STUDYTo demonstrate what we discussed earlier, we will usePhotosynth as an example to illustrate how multimedia par-allel processing works and how it outperforms the traditionalapproach. Photosynth ( is a soft-ware application that analyzes digital photographs and Task Managergenerates a three-dimensional (3-D) model of the photos ….. …..[11], [12]. Users are able to generate their own models usingthe software on the client side and then upload them to thePhotoSynth Web site. Currently, computing Photosynth im-ages is done in a local PC. The major computation tasks ofPhotosynth are image conversion, feature extraction, imagematching, and reconstruction. In the traditional approach,the aforementioned four tasks are performed sequentially in …..a local client. In the cloud-computing environment, we pro- (b)pose that the four computation tasks of Photosynth be con-ducted in an MEC. This is particularly important for mobile [FIG4] (a) Data and program trackers for multimedia service.devices because of their low computation capability and (b) Distributed parallel multimedia processing.battery constraints. To reduce the com-putation time when dealing with a largenumber of users, we propose cloud-based parallel synthing with a load bal-ancer in which the PhotoSynth Image Conversion Phase 1algorithms are run in a parallel pipelinein an MEC. Our proposed parallel synth- Feature Extraction Phase 2ing consists of user- and task-level par- Server 1 Image Matching Phase 3allelization. F igu re 5 shows theuser-level parallel synthing in which all Photo Set Reconstruction Phase 4tasks of synthing from one user are allo- Load Server 2cated to one server to compute, but the Balancertasks from all users can be done simul-taneously in parallel in the MEC. Figure6 shows the task-level parallel synthing Server Nin which all tasks of synthing from oneuser are allocated to N servers to compute [FIG5] User-level parallel synthing in an MEC. IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING MAGAZINE [63] MAY 2011
  6. 6. Image Feature Image Reconstruction Conversion Extraction Matching Server 1 Images Image Feature Image Conversion Extraction Matching Load Server 2 Balancer Image Feature Image Conversion Extraction Matching Server N Time Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4[FIG6] Task-level parallel synthing in the parallel. More specifically, the tasks of image conversion, 400 images, respectively. From Tables 1 and 2, we can see thatfeature extraction, and images matching are computed in N for the two-server case we can achieve a 1.65 times computa-servers. Figure 6 shows that, theoretically, when the commu- tional gain over the traditional sequential approach, and for thenication overhead is omitted, image conversion, feature ex- nine-server case, we can achieve a 4.25 times computationaltraction, and image matching can save N times less gain over the traditional approach.computation time using task-level parallelization with Nservers than that with the one-server case. MEDIA CLOUD QOS We performed a preliminary simulation in which we ran the Another key challenge in the media cloud/MEC is QoS. Thereparallel photosynthing code in an HPC cluster node with nine are two ways of providing QoS provisioning for multimedia:servers. Tables 1 and 2 list the simulation results for 200 and one is to add QoS to the current cloud-computing infrastruc- ture within the cloud and the other is to add QoS middleware between the [TABLE 1] SIMULATION RESULTS OF 200 IMAGES PARALLEL SYNTHING cloud infrastructure and multimedia IN AN HPC CLUSTER. applications. In the former case, it ONE SERVER TWO SERVERS NINE SERVERS focuses on the cloud infrastructure QoS, providing QoS pro visioning inTASKS TIME (MS) TIME (MS) GAIN TIME (MS) GAIN the cloud infrastructure to supportIMAGE CONVERSION 65,347.25 41,089.77 1.59 15,676.95 4.17FEATURE EXTRACTION 34,864.50 18,140.31 1.92 7,414.13 4.70 multimedia applications and servicesIMAGE MATCHING 47,812.50 30,103.78 1.59 11,510.03 4.15 with different media QoS require-TOTAL TIME/GAIN 148,024.25 89,333.86 1.66 34,601.11 4.28 ments. In the latter case, it focuses on improving cloud QoS in the middle layers, such as QoS in the transport [TABLE 2] SIMULATION RESULTS OF 400 IMAGES PARALLEL SYNTHING IN AN HPC CLUSTER. layer and QoS mapping between the cloud infrastructure and media appli- ONE SERVER TWO SERVERS NINE SERVERS cations (e.g., overlay).TASKS TIME (MS) TIME (MS) GAIN TIME (MS) GAIN The cloud infrastructure QoS is aIMAGE CONVERSION 150,509.30 91,233.67 1.65 32,702.28 4.60 new area where more research isFEATURE EXTRACTION 101,437.00 51,576.00 1.97 20,391.11 4.97 needed to provide stringent QoS pro-IMAGE MATCHING 207,696.33 135,965.17 1.53 55,194.38 3.76 visioning for multimedia applica-TOTAL TIME/GAIN 459,642.63 278,774.84 1.65 108,287.77 4.24 tions and services in the cloud. In IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING MAGAZINE [64] MAY 2011
  7. 7. this article, we focus on how a shared through the Internet. THE MEDIA CLOUD PROXY IScloud can provide QoS support The huge success of YouTubefor multimedia applications DESIGNED TO DEAL WITH MOBILE demonstrates the popularity ofand services. Specifically, in an MULTIMEDIA COMPUTING AND Internet media.MEC, according to the proper- CACHING FOR MOBILE PHONES. Before the cloud-computingties of media services, we orga- era, media storage, processing,nize similar types of media services into a cluster of servers and dissemination services were provided by different servicethat has the best capability to process them. An MEC con- providers with their proprietary server farms. Now, various ser-sists of three clusters: storage, CPU, and GPU clusters. For vice providers have a choice to be users of public clouds. Theexample, media applications related to graphics can go to “pay-as-you-go” model of a public cloud would greatly facilitatethe GPU cluster, normal media processing can go to the small businesses and multimedia fanciers. For small businesses,CPU cluster, and storage types of media applications can go they pay just for the computing and storage they have used,to the storage cluster. As a result, an MEC can provide QoS rather than maintaining a large set of servers only for peaksupport for different types of media with different QoS loads. For individuals, cloud utility can provide a potentiallyrequirements. unlimited storage space and is more convenient to use than To improve multimedia QoS performance in a media cloud, buying hard addition to moving media content and computation to the In the following, we will present storage and sharing (stor-MEC to reduce latency and to perform content adaptation to age and dissemination), authoring and mashup (storage andheterogeneous devices, a media cloud proxy is proposed in our processing), adaptation and delivery (processing and dissemina-architecture to further reduce latency and best serve different tion), and media rendering, respectively.types of devices with adaptation especially for mobile devices.The media cloud proxy is designed to deal with mobile multi- STORAGE AND SHARINGmedia computing and caching for mobile phones. As a mobile Cloud storage has the advantage of being “always-on” so thatphone has a limited battery life and computation power, the users can access their files from any device and can share theirmedia cloud proxy is used to perform mobile multimedia com- files with friends who may access the content at an arbitraryputing in full or part to compensate for the mobile phone’s time. It is also an important feature that cloud storage pro-limitations mentioned above, including QoS adaptation to dif- vides a much higher level of reliability than local storage.ferent types of terminals. In addition, the media cloud proxy Cloud storage service can be categorized into consumer- andcan also provide a media cache for the mobile phone. Future developer-oriented services. Within the category of consumer-research directions include cloud infrastructure QoS and oriented cloud storage services, some cloud providers deploycloud QoS overlay for multimedia services, dynamic multime- their own server farm, while some others operate based ondia load balancing, and so on. user-contributed physical storage. IOmega ( is a consumer-oriented cloud storage service, which holds theCLOUD-AWARE MULTIMEDIA storage service on its own servers and, thus, offers a for-payAPPLICATIONS only service. AllMyData ( trades 1 GBThe emergence of cloud computing will have a profound impact of hosted space for 10 GB of donated space from users. Theon the entire life cycle of multimedia contents. As shown in major investment is software or services, such as data encrypt-Figure 7, a typical media life cycle is composed of acquisition, ing, fragmentation and distribution, and backup. Amazon S3storage, processing, dissemination, and presentation. ( and Openomy (http://www.openo- For a long time, high-quality media contents could only are developer-oriented cloud storage acquired by professional organizations with efficient Amazon S3 goes with the typical cloud provisioning “pay onlydevices, and the distribution of mediacontents relied on hard copies, such asfilm, video compact disc (VCD), andDVD. During the recent decade, theavailability of low-cost commodity digi-tal cameras and camcorders has sparked Storagean explosion of user-generated media Acquisition Dissemination Presentationcontents. Most recently, cyber-physicalsystems [13] offer a new way of data Processingacquisition through sensor networks,which significantly increases the vol-ume and diversity of media data. Ridingthe Web 2.0 wave, digital media con-tents can now be easily distributed or [FIG7] A typical media life cycle. IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING MAGAZINE [65] MAY 2011
  8. 8. for what you use.” There is no minimum fee and startup cost. bandwidth demand of multimedia contents calls for dynamicThey charge for both storage and bandwidth per gigabyte. In load balancing algorithms for cloud-based streaming.Openomy, the files are organized purely by tags. A publiclycallable application programming interface (API) and strong AUTHORING AND MASHUPfocus on tags rather than the classic file system hierarchy is Multimedia authoring is the process of editing segments ofthe differentiating feature of Openomy. The general-purpose multimedia contents, while mashup deals with combiningcloud providers, such as Microsoft Azure (http://www.micro- multiple segments from different multimedia sources., also allow developers to build stor- date, authoring and mashup tools are roughly classified intoage services on top of them. For example, NeoGeo Company two categories: one is offline tools, such as Adobe Premierebuilds its digital asset management software neoMediaCenter. and Windows Movie Maker, and the other is online services,NET based on Microsoft Azure. such as Jaycut ( The former provides Sharing is an integral part of cloud service. The request of more editing functions, but the client usually needs editingeasy sharing is the main reason the multimedia contents occu- software maintenance. The latter provides fewer functions,py a large portion of cloud storage space. Conventionally, mul- but the client need not bother about its software maintenance.timedia sharing happens only when the person who shares the Authoring and mashup are generally time consuming andcontents and the person who is shared with are both online multimedia contents occupy large amount of storages. Aand have a high-data-rate con- cloud can make online author-nection. Cloud computing is ing and mashup very effective, THE ABILITY TO PERFORM ONLINEnow turning this synchronous providing more functions to cli- MEDIA COMPUTATION IS A MAJORprocess into an asynchronous ents, since it has powerful com-one and is making one-to-many DIFFERENTIATING CHARACTERISTIC putation and storage resourcessharing more efficient. The per- OF MEDIA CLOUD FROM that are widely distributed geo-son who shares simply uploads TRADITIONAL CDNS. graphically. Moreover, cloud-the contents to the cloud stor- based multimedia authoringage at his or her convenience and then sends a hyperlink to the and mashup can avoid preinstallation of editing software inpersons being shared with. The latter can then access the con- clients. In this article, we present a cloud-based online multi-tents whenever they like, since the cloud is always on. Sharing media authoring and mashup framework. In this framework,through a cloud also increases media QoS because cloud–client users will conduct editing and mashup in the media cloud.connections almost always provide a higher bandwidth and One of the key challenges in cloud-based authoring andshorter delay than client–client connections, not to mention mashup is the computing and communication costs in pro-the firewall and network address translation traversal problems cessing multiple segments from single source or multiplecommonly encountered in client–client communications. The sources. To address this challenge, inspired by the idea ofcomplexities of cloud-based sharing mainly reside in naming, [15], we present an extensible markup language (XML)-basedaddressing, and access control. representation file format for cloud-based media authoring Instantaneous music and video sharing can be achieved via and mashup. As illustrated in Figure 8, this is not a multime-streaming. Compared to the conventional streaming services dia data stream but a description file, indicating the organiza-operating through proprietary server farms of streaming service tion of different multimedia contents. The file can be logicallyproviders, cloud-based streaming can potentially achieve much regarded as a multilayer container. The layers can be entitya lower latency and provide much a higher bandwidth. This is layers, such as video, audio, graphic, and transition and effectbecause cloud providers own a large number of servers deployed layers. Each segment of a layer is represented as a link to thein wide geographical areas. For example, streamload targets to original one, which maintains associated data in the case ofthose who are interested in rich media streaming and hosting. being deleted or moved, as well as some more descriptions.They offer unlimited storage for paying users, and the charging The transmission and effects are either a link with parame-plan is based on the downloading bandwidth. In this article, we ters or a description considering personalized demands. Sincepropose a cloud-based streaming approach. In the architecture a media cloud holds large original multimedia contents andof cloud-based streaming, compared with the architecture of frequently used transmission and effect templates [16], it willvideo streaming in [14], the media cloud/MEC has a distributed be beneficial to use the link-based presentation file. Thus, themedia storage module for storing the compressed video and process of authoring or mashup is to edit the presentationaudio streams for millions of users and a QoS adaptation mod- file, by which the computing load on the cloud side will beule for different types of devices, such as mobile phones, PCs, significantly reduced. In our approach, we will select an MECand TVs. While our media cloud/MEC-based streaming architec- to serve authoring or mashup service to all heterogeneousture presents a possible solution to cloud streaming QoS provi- clients including mobile phone users. By leveraging edgesioning, there are still many research issues to be tackled. servers’ assistance in the MEC with proxy to mobile phone, itConsidering the cloud network properties, a new cloud trans- allows mobile editing to achieve good QoE. Future researchport protocol may need to be developed. In addition, the high on cloud-based multimedia authoring and mashup needs to IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING MAGAZINE [66] MAY 2011
  9. 9. Media Cloud Video Representation File Videom Videon Video Layer Audio Audiom Audion Audio Layer Effectm Transition Effectn Transition and Effect Layer Transition/Effect[FIG8] Cloud-based multimedia authoring and mashup.tackle distributed storage and processing in the cloud, online cloud shall take charge of collecting customized parameters,previewing on the client, especially for mobile phones and such as screen size, bandwidth, and generating various ver-slate devices. sions according to their parameters either offline or on the fly. Note that the former needs more storage, while the latterADAPTATION AND DELIVERY needs dynamic video adaptation upon delivery. The ability toAs there exist various types of terminals, such as PCs, mobile perform online media computation is a major differentiatingphones, and TVs, and heterogeneous networks, such as characteristic of media cloud from traditional CDNs. WeEthernet, WLAN, and cellular networks, how to effectively would like to point out that the processing capability atdeliver multimedia contents to heterogeneous devices via one media-edge servers makes it possible for service providers tocloud is becoming very important and challenging. Video pay more attention to QoE under dynamic network conditionsadaptation [17], [18] plays an important role in multimedia than just to some predefined QoS metrics. In the presenteddelivery. It transforms input video(s) into an output video in a framework, adaptation for single-layer and multilayer videoform that meets the user’s needs. In general, video adaptation will be performed differently. If the video is of a single layer,needs a large amount of computing and is difficult to perform video adaptation needs to adjust bit rate, frame rate, and reso-especially when there are a vast number of consumers lution to meet different types of terminals. For scalable videorequesting service simultaneously. Although offline transcod- coding, a cloud can generate various forms of videos by trun-ing from one video into multiple versions for different condi- cating its scalable layers according to the clients’ networktions works well sometimes, it needs larger storage. Besides, bandwidth. How to perform video adaptation on the fly can beoffline transcoding is unable to serve live video such as one of the future research topics.Internet protocol television (IPTV) thatneeds to run in real time. Because of the strong computing andstorage power of the cloud, both offline Bit Rate, Frame Rate, and Resolutionand online media adaptation to differenttypes of terminals can be conducted in a Media Cloudcloud. Cloudcoder is a good example of a Live Videos Nonlive Videoscloud-based video adaptation service that Coding Standardswas built on the Microsoft Azure plat-form [19]. The cloudcoder is integrated Video Adaptationinto the origin digital central manage-ment platform while offloading much ofthe processing to the cloud. The numberof transcoder instances automaticallyscales to handle the increased ordecreased volume. In this article, we Clientspresent a framework of cloud-basedvideo adaptation for delivery, as illustrat-ed in Figure 9. Video adaption in a media [FIG9] Cloud-based video adaptation and transcoding. IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING MAGAZINE [67] MAY 2011
  10. 10. an intermediate stream for further client rendering, according to the client’s rendering capability. More specifically, an MEC with a proxy can serve mobile clients with high QoE since Media Cloud rending (e.g., view interpolation) can be done in an MEC proxy. Research challenges and opportunities include how to Fully Render Partially Render efficiently and dynamically allocate the rendering resources between the client and cloud. One of the future research directions is to study how an MEC proxy can assist mobile Resource Allocation/Partition phones on rendering computation, since the mobile phones have limitations in battery life, memory size, and computa- Partially Render tion capability. Multimedia retrieval, such as content-based image Display Display retrieval (CBIR), is a good application example of cloud com- Clients puting as well. In the following, we will present how CBIR can leverage cloud computing. CBIR [23] is used to search digital images in a large database based on image content[FIG10] Cloud-based multimedia rendering. other than metadata and text annotation. The research topics in CBIR include feature extraction, similarity measurement,MEDIA RENDERING and relevance feedback. There are two key challenges inTraditionally, multimedia rendering is conducted at the client CBIR: how to improve the search quality and how to reduceside, and the client is usually capable of doing rendering tasks, computation complexity (or computation time). As theresuch as geometry modeling, texture mapping, and so on. In exists a semantic gap between the low-level underlying visualsome cases, however, the clients lack the ability required to ren- features and semantics, it is difficult to get high search quali-der the multimedia. For instance, a free viewpoint video [20], ty. Because the Internet image database is becoming larger,which allows users to interactively change the viewpoint in any searching in such a database is becoming computationally3-D position or within a certain range, is difficult to be rendered intensive. However, in general, there is a tradeoff betweenon a mobile phone. This is because the wireless bandwidth is quality and complexity. Usually, a higher quality is achievedquite limited, and the mobile phone has limited computing at the price of a higher complexity and vice versa. Leveragingcapability, memory size, and battery life. Shu et al. [21] pro- the strong computing capability of a media cloud, one canposed a rendering proxy to perform rendering for the mobile achieve a higher quality with acceptable computation time,phone. For example, Web browsing is an essential mechanism resulting in better performance from the client’s access the information on the World Wide Web. However, it isrelatively difficult for mobile phones to render Web pages, espe- SUMMARYcially the asynchronous JavaScript and XML (AJAX) Web page. This article presented the fundamental concept and a frame-Lehtonen et al. [22] proposed a proxy-based architecture for work of multimedia cloud computing. We addressed multime-mobile Web browsing. When the client sends a Web request, the dia cloud computing from multimedia-aware cloud andproxy fetches the remote Web page, renders it, and responds cloud-aware multimedia perspectives. On the multimedia-awarewith a package containing a page description, which includes a cloud, we presented how a cloud can provide QoS support, dis-page miniature image, the content, and coordinates of the most tributed parallel processing, storage, and load balancing for var-important elements on the page. In essence, in both examples, a ious multimedia applications and services. Specifically, weresource-allocation strategy is needed such that a portion of proposed an MEC-computing architecture that can achieve highrendering task can be shifted from the client to server, thus cloud QoS support for various multimedia services. On cloud-eliminating computing burden of a thin client. aware multimedia, we addressed how multimedia services and Rendering on mobile phones or computationally con- applications, such as storage and sharing, authoring and mash-strained devices imposes great challenges owing to a limited up, adaptation and delivery, and rendering and retrieval, canbattery life and computing power as well as narrow wireless optimally utilize cloud-computing resources. The researchbandwidth. The cloud equipped with GPU can perform render- directions and problems of multimedia cloud computing wereing due to its strong computing capability. Considering the discussed accordingly.tradeoff between computing and communication, there are In this article, we presented some thoughts on multimediatwo types of cloud-based rendering. One is to conduct all the cloud computing and our preliminary research in this area. Therendering in the cloud, and the other is to conduct only com- research in multimedia cloud computing is still in its infancy,putational intensive part of the rendering in the cloud, while and many problems in this area remain open. For example,the rest will be performed on the client. In this article, we media cloud QoS addressed in this article still needs morepresent cloud-based media rendering. As illustrated in Figure investigations. Some other open research topics on multimedia10, the media cloud can do full or partial rendering, generating cloud computing include media cloud transport protocol, media IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING MAGAZINE [68] MAY 2011
  11. 11. cloud overlay network, media cloud security, P2P cloud for mul- Corporation as a member of technical staff. He has authored andtimedia services, and so on. coauthored five books or book chapters and more than 200 journal and conference papers as well as holds more than 90 patents. HisACKNOWLEDGMENTS research interests include multimedia processing, retrieval, cod-We thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive com- ing, streaming, and mobility.ments that greatly improved the article. We acknowledgeLijing Qin and Lie Liu from Tsinghua University and Zheng Li REFERENCES [1] M. Armbrust, A. Fox, R. Griffith, A. D. Joseph, R. Katz, A. Konwinski, G.from the University of Science and Technology of China Lee, D. Patterson, A. Rabkin, I. Stoica, and M. Zaharia. (2009, Feb. 10). Above(USTC) for their contributions to the section “Multimedia- the clouds: A Berkeley view of cloud computing. EECS Dept., Univ. Califor- nia, Berkeley, No. UCB/EECS-2009-28 [Online]. Available: http://radlab.Aware Cloud” when they were interns at Microsoft Research We also thank Jun Liao from Tsinghua University and [2] R. Buyya, C. S. Yeo, and S. Venugopal, “Market-oriented cloud computing: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering it services as computing utilities,” in Proc.Siyuan Tang from the USTC for their contributions to cloud- 10th IEEE Int. Conf. High Performance Computing and Communications, 2008,based parallel photosynthing case study when they were pp. 5–13. [3] K. Kilkki, “Quality of experience in communications ecosystem,” J. Universalinterns at Microsoft Research Asia. We also acknowledge Prof. Comput. Sci., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 615–624, 2008.Yifeng He from Ryerson University for proofreading the article [4] ABI Research. (2009, July). Mobile cloud computing [Online]. Available:and Dr. Jingdong Wang from Microsoft Research Asia for proof- of CBIR. [5] Q. Zhang, Z. Ji, W. Zhu, and Y.-Q. Zhang, “Power-minimized bit allocation for video communication over wireless channels,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 398–410, June 2002.AUTHORS [6] P. Maymounkov and D. Mazieres, “Kademlia: A peer-to-peer information system based on the XOR metric,” in Proc. IPTPS02, Cambridge, Mar. 2002, pp. 53–65.Wenwu Zhu ( received his Ph.D. [7] B. Aljaber, T. Jacobs, K. Nadiminti, and R. Buyya, “Multimedia on global grids:degree from Polytechnic Institute of New York University in A case study in distributed ray tracing,” Malays. J. Comput. Sci., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–11, June 2007.1996. He worked at Bell Labs during 1996–1999. He was with [8] J. Nieh and S. J. Yang, “Measuring the multimedia performance of server-Microsoft Research Asia’s Internet Media Group and Wireless based computing,” in Proc. 10th Int. Workshop on Network and Operating Sys-and Networking Group as research manager from 1999 to 2004. tem Support for Digital Audio and Video, 2000, pp. 55–64. [9] I. Trajkovska, J. Salvachúa, and A. M. Velasco, “A novel P2P and cloudHe was the director and chief scientist at Intel Communication computing hybrid architecture for multimedia streaming with QoS cost func-Technology Lab, China. He is a senior researcher at the Internet tions,” in Proc. ACM Multimedia, 2010, pp. 1227–1230.Media Group at Microsoft Research Asia. He has published more [10] G. Cybenko, “Dynamic load balancing for distributed memory multiproces- sors,” J. Parallel Distrib. Comput., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 279–301, 1989.than 200 refereed papers and filed 40 patents. He is a Fellow of [11] N. Snavely, S. M. Seitz, and R. Szeliski, “Photo tourism: Exploring photo col-the IEEE. His research interests include Internet/wireless mul- lections in 3D,” ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 835–846, 2006.timedia and multimedia communications and networking. [12] N. Snavely, S. M. Seitz, and R. Szeliski, “Modeling the world from Internet photo collections,” Int. J. Comput. Vision, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 189–210, Nov. Chong Luo ( received her B.S. degree 2008.from Fudan University in Shanghai, China, in 2000 and her [13] The National Science Foundation. (2008, Sept. 30). Cyber-physical sys- tems. Program Announcements and Information. NSF, Arlington, VirginiaM.S. degree from the National University of Singapore in 2002. [Online]. Available: is currently pursuing her Ph.D. degree in the Department key=nsf08611of Electronic Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, [14] D. Wu, Y. T. Hou, W. Zhu, Y.-Q. Zhang, and J. M. Peha, “Streaming video over the Internet: Approaches and directions,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. VideoShanghai, China. She has been with Microsoft Research Asia Technol., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 282–300, Mar. 2001.since 2003, where she is a researcher in the Internet Media [15] X.-S. Hua and S. Li., “Personal media sharing and authoring on the web,” in Proc. ACM Int. Conf. Multimedia, Nov. 2005, pp. 375– She is a Member of the IEEE. Her research interests [16] X.-S. Hua and S. Li, “Interactive video authoring and sharing based on two-include multimedia communications, wireless sensor networks, layer templates,” in Proc. 1st ACM Int. Workshop on Human-Centered MM 2006and media cloud computing. (HCM’06), pp. 65–74. Jianfeng Wang ( received his [17] S. F. Chang and A. Vetro, “Video adaptation: Concepts, technologies, and open issues,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 148–158, 2005.B.Eng. degree from the Department of Electronic Engineering [18] J. Xin, C-W. Lin, and M-T. Sun, “Digital video transcoding,” Proc. IEEE, vol.and Information Science in the University of Science and 93, no. 1, pp. 84–94, Jan. 2005.Technology of China in 2010. He was an intern at Microsoft [19] Origin Digital. (2009, Nov. 17). Video services provider to reduce transcoding costs up to half [Online]. Available: Asia from February to August in 2010. Currently, he is casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=4000005952a master’s stu dent in MOE-Microsoft Key Laboratory of [20] A. Kubota, A. Smolic, M. Magnor, M. Tanimoto, T. Chen, and C. Zhang, “Mul- tiview imaging and 3DTV,” IEEE Signal Processing Mag., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 10–21,Multimedia Computing and Communication in USTC. His Nov. 2007.research interests include signal processing, media cloud, and [21] S. Shi, W. J. Jeon, K. Nahrstedt, and R. H. Campbel, “Real-time remotemultimedia information retrieval. rendering of 3D video for mobile devices,” in Proc. ACM Multimedia, 2009, pp. 391–400. Shipeng Li ( received his Ph.D. degree [22] T. Lehtonen, S. Benamar, V. Laamanen, I. Luoma, O. Ruotsalainen, J. Sa-from Lehigh University in 1996 and his M.S. and B.S. degrees from lonen, and T. Mikkonen, “Towards user-friendly mobile browsing,” in Proc. 2nd Int. Workshop on Advanced Architectures and Algorithms for Internet Deliverythe University of Science and Technology of China in 1991 and and Applications (ACM Int. Conf. Proc. Series, vol. 198), 2006, Article 6.1988, respectively. He has been with Microsoft Research Asia since [23] A. W. M. Smeulders, M. Worring, S. Santini, A. Gupta, and R. Jain, “Content- based image retrieval at the end of the early years,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal.May 1999, where he was a principal researcher and research area Machine Intell., vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 1349–1380, Dec. 2000.manager. From October 1996 to May 1999, he was with Sarnoff [SP] IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING MAGAZINE [69] MAY 2011