Measurement of the Congestion Responsiveness of RealPlayer Streaming Video Over UDP

Measurement of the Congestion Responsiveness

of RealPlayer Streaming Video Over UDP

Jae Chung, Mark Claypool, Yali Zhu

Proceedings of the InternationalWorkshop on Packet Video (PV)

Nantes, France April 2003

http://www.cs.wpi.edu/~claypool/papers/h2h/

The Hungry Wolf - Bandwidth Requirements for Video

•Streaming media growing– 350,000 hours of online video broadcast

’01

•Voice is 32-64 Kbps, but video has range of data rates– Videoconference 0.1 Mbps (H.261, MPEG-4)– VCR 1.2 Mbps (MPEG-1)– Broadcast quality 2-4 Mbps (MPEG-2)– HDTV quality 25-34 Mbps (MPEG-2) Thus, potential for more than network

capacity

The Wolf on the Prowl – Transport Protocols for Video

•Streaming video doesn’t like TCP– Wants rate-based not window-based– Can tolerate some loss– AIMD causes rate fluctuationsSo, use UDP where application controls

•But UDP has no congestion control– Unfair, unfriendly, and even collapse!

•Approaches to have router catch– Model video as CBR “firehose” (is it?)

The Wolf Pack – Commercial Video

•Commercial products have major impact

•Have been studies characterizing commercial traffic– Bandwidth use, frame rate, user use…

•But no work measuring responsiveness, or lack of it, of commercial video products

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 10 20 30

Frame Rate (fps)

Cu

mm

ula

tive

De

ns

ity

TCP

UDP

Specific Motivation

TCP

UDP

Outline

•Introduction •Background •Experiments •Results •Analysis

•Conclusions

RealVideo Network Characteristics

•SureStream– Allows bandwidth scaling

•Buffering– Remove jitter

Server

RTSP

Data: TCP or UDP

-Choice, unclear

-We’ll force

Outline

•Introduction •Background

•Experiments •Results •Analysis

•Conclusions

Methodology

•Select Real Video Clips

•Construct environment for measuring congestion response

•Construct environment to measure ability to scale (SureStream)

•Iteratively plan clips varying network

RealVideo Clip Playlist

•If put in controlled environment, may not be representative of clips “in the wild”

•Select large number through search engines (Yahoo, Google …)

•Randomly choose 100 (79 analyzed)

•Geography results:– 76 US, 9 Canada, 8 UK, 6 Italy, 1 Germany– North American dominance likely reflected

in typical user locality of reference

•Length results:– Median 3 minutes, min 20 seconds, max 30

minutes

Responsiveness Measurement Environment

• PIII 700 Mhz, 128 MB RAM, Linux 2.4

• RealPlayer version 8.0.3

• Sniffing via tcpdump

• Loss and round-trip time via ping

• TBF to limit bandwidth

• 2 Measurements for each clip

• (Note, RealTracer for MediaScaling)

Internet

Client

Hub

Router

10Mbps

DSL

700KbpsClient

Token Bucket Filter

UDP

TCPServer

Outline

•Introduction •Background

•Experiments

•Results •Analysis

•Conclusions

Distribution of Loss

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Cum

ula

tive

Den

sity

Loss (fraction)

075 Kbps150 Kbps300 Kbps600 Kbps

Distribution of Latency

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Cum

ula

tive

Den

sity

RTT (m illiseconds)


Distribution of Packet Sizes

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Cum

ula

tive

Den

sity

Packet S ize (Kbytes)

TCPUDP

Outline

• Introduction • Background

• Experiments

• Results

• Analysis

– Head to Head – Bandwidth– Scaling– Buffering– Smooth

• Conclusions

RealPlayer = FairPlayer?

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 50 100 150 200 250

Th

roug

hpu

t (K

bps)

P layout + Buffering Tim e (Seconds)

Clip-19 TCP (DSL: BW = 600Kbps, Q = 10Kbytes)Clip-19 UDP (DSL: BW = 600Kbps, Q = 10Kbytes)

RealPlayer = FoulPlayer?

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 50 100 150 200 250

Th

roug

hpu

t (K

bps)

P layout + Buffering Tim e (Seconds)

Clip-31 TCP (DSL: BW = 600Kbps, Q = 10Kbytes)Clip-31 UDP (DSL: BW = 600Kbps, Q = 10Kbytes)

Bandwidth Distribution

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cum

ula

tive

Den

sity

Average Bandwidth for 75 Kbps (Kbps)

Average Bandwidth for TCPAverage Bandwidth for UDP

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Cum

ula

tive

Den

sity



0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Cum

ula

tive

Den

sity



0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Cum

ula

tive

Den

sity



600 Kbps

300 Kbps

150 Kbps 75 Kbps

Head-to-Head Bandwidth

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Ave

rag

e B

and

wid

th fo

r U

DP

(K

bps

)

Average Bandwidth for TCP (Kbps)


Bandwidth Difference Distribution

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Cum

ula

tive

Den

sity

Norm alized Average Bandwidth D ifference (TCP-UDP)


Mostly TCP-Friendly!

•Remove low bandwidth (36%)

•Then remove unscalable (14%)

Outline


• Experiments

• Results

• Analysis – Head to Head – Bandwidth – Scaling – Buffering– Smooth

• Conclusions

Media Scaling Distribution

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Cum

ula

tive

Den

sity

Number of Scales (Coded-Bandwidth)

Media Scales

Media Scaling Dynamics (1)

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Co

ded-

Ban

dw

idth

(bp

s)

P layout + Buffereing Tim e (sec)

local bw lim it (35 kbps)Scale (Coded-BW ) Movement for C lip-65 TCPScale (Coded-BW ) Movement for C lip-65 UDP

Media Scaling Dynamics (2)

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Co

ded-

Ban

dw

idth

(bp

s)

P layout + Buffereing Tim e (sec)

local bw lim it (35 kbps)Scale (Coded-BW ) Movement for C lip-78 TCPScale (Coded-BW ) Movement for C lip-78 UDP

Media Scaling Distributions

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 2 4 6 8 10

Cum

ula

tive

Den

sity

Number of Scale (Coded-Bandwidth) Changes

Number of Scale Changes Seen for TCPNumber of Scale Changes Seen for UDP

Media Scaling Adaptation Speed

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Cum

ula

tive

Den

sity

E laps Time in Seconds: 0 to tim e(Coded-BW < 35kbps)

Scale Adaptation Speed for TCPScale Adaptation Speed for UDP

Outline


• Experiments

• Results

• Analysis – Head to Head – Bandwidth

– Scaling – Buffering – Smooth

• Conclusions

Buffering Rate to Playout Rate

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Ave

rage

Buf

feri

ng R

ate

/ A

vera

ge S

tead

y P

layo

ut R

ate

Average Steady Playout Rate (Kbps)

TCP (A ll DSL-TBF Runs)UDP (All DSL-TBF R uns)

Buffering Rate to Playout Rate Distribution

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Cum

ula

tive

Den

sity

Average Buffering Rate / Average Steady Playout Rate

TCP (All LAN Runs)UDP (All LAN Runs)

Smoothness

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1/2 1 2

Cu

mul

ativ

e D

ensi

ty

Throughput Ra tio

TCPUDP

Smoothness at each Bottleneck

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1/2 1 2

Cu

mul

ativ

e D

ensi

ty

Throughput Ra tio for 75 Kbps

TCPUDP

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1/2 1 2

Cu

mul

ativ

e D

ensi

ty

Throughput Ratio for 150 Kbps

TCPUDP

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1/2 1 2

Cu

mul

ativ

e D

ensi

ty


TCPUDP

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1/2 1 2

Cu

mul

ativ

e D

ensi

ty


TCPUDP

Discussion of Results

•No concrete incentives to respond to congestion– In fact, may be “rewarded” for not

•However, RealVideo clearly responds– Often TCP-Friendly

•Content providers need to provide chance for scalability– Scaling levels

•But buffering at higher rate is bad for network

•TCP can be as smooth as UDP

•So why not TCP? API is limiting

Future Work?

Future Work

•Other commercial Players– Microsoft Media Player

•Live clips (versus pre-recorded clips)

•Perceptual quality of video over TCP versus UDP

•Characterization of clips on Internet– So can examine “typical” clips

Documents

Measurement of the Congestion Responsiveness of RealPlayer Streaming Video Over UDP