Understanding the Power of Pull-Based Streaming Protocol: Can We Do Better?

Most of the real deployed peer-to-peer streaming systems adopt pull-based streaming protocol. In this paper, we demonstrate that, besides simplicity and robustness, with proper parameter settings, when the server bandwidth is above several times of the raw streaming rate, which is reasonable for practical live streaming system, simple pull-based P2P streaming protocol is nearly optimal in terms of peer upload capacity utilization and system throughput even without intelligent scheduling and bandwidth measurement. We also indicate that whether this near optimality can be achieved depends on the parameters in pull-based protocol, server bandwidth and group size. Then we present our mathematical analysis to gain deeper insight in this characteristic of pull-based streaming protocol. On the other hand, the optimality of pull-based protocol comes from a cost -tradeoff between control overhead and delay, that is, the protocol has either large control overhead or large delay. To break the tradeoff, we propose a pull-push hybrid protocol. The basic idea is to consider pull-based protocol as a highly efficient bandwidth-aware multicast routing protocol and push down packets along the trees formed by pull-based protocol. Both simulation and real-world experiment show that this protocol is not only even more effective in throughput than pull-based protocol but also has far lower delay and much smaller overhead. And to achieve near optimality in peer capacity utilization without churn, the server bandwidth needed can be further relaxed. Furthermore, the proposed protocol is fully implemented in our deployed GridMedia system and has the record to support over 220,000 users simultaneously online.

[1]  Guillaume Urvoy-Keller,et al.  Rarest first and choke algorithms are enough , 2006, IMC '06.

[2]  Bo Li,et al.  CoolStreaming/DONet: a data-driven overlay network for peer-to-peer live media streaming , 2005, Proceedings IEEE 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies..

[3]  Hui Zhang,et al.  A case for end system multicast (keynote address) , 2000, SIGMETRICS '00.

[4]  Srinivasan Seshan,et al.  A case for end system multicast , 2002, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun..

[5]  Naveen Garg,et al.  Bandwidth Maximization in Multicasting , 2003, ESA.

[6]  Laurent Massoulié,et al.  Randomized Decentralized Broadcasting Algorithms , 2007, IEEE INFOCOM 2007 - 26th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[7]  Reza Rejaie,et al.  PRIME: Peer-to-Peer Receiver-drIven MEsh-Based Streaming , 2007, IEEE INFOCOM 2007 - 26th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[8]  Reza Rejaie,et al.  Mesh or Multiple-Tree: A Comparative Study of Live P2P Streaming Approaches , 2007, IEEE INFOCOM 2007 - 26th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[9]  Venkata N. Padmanabhan,et al.  Analyzing and Improving a BitTorrent Networks Performance Mechanisms , 2006, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2006. 25TH IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[10]  Bo Li,et al.  DONet: A Data-Driven Overlay Network For Efficient Live Media Streaming , 2004, INFOCOM 2005.

[11]  Jibin Zhan,et al.  Early Experience with an Internet Broadcast System Based on Overlay Multicast , 2004, USENIX Annual Technical Conference, General Track.

[12]  Reza Rejaie,et al.  PRIME: Peer-to-Peer Receiver-drIven MEsh-Based Streaming , 2007, IEEE INFOCOM 2007 - 26th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[13]  Vinay S. Pai,et al.  Chainsaw: Eliminating Trees from Overlay Multicast , 2005, IPTPS.

[14]  Klara Nahrstedt,et al.  On achieving optimized capacity utilization in application overlay networks with multiple competing sessions , 2004, SPAA '04.

[15]  Rakesh Kumar,et al.  Stochastic Fluid Theory for P2P Streaming Systems , 2007, IEEE INFOCOM 2007 - 26th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[16]  Baochun Li,et al.  Outreach: peer-to-peer topology construction towards minimized server bandwidth costs , 2007, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[17]  Chuan Wu,et al.  Echelon: Peer-to-Peer Network Diagnosis with Network Coding , 2006, 200614th IEEE International Workshop on Quality of Service.

[18]  Miguel Castro,et al.  SplitStream: high-bandwidth multicast in cooperative environments , 2003, SOSP '03.

[19]  B. S. Li,et al.  CoolStreaming/DONet: A dData-driven overlay network for live media streaming , 2004 .

[20]  Zongpeng Li,et al.  On achieving optimal throughput with network coding , 2005, Proceedings IEEE 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies..

[21]  Siddhartha Annapureddy,et al.  Exploring VoD in P2P Swarming Systems , 2007, IEEE INFOCOM 2007 - 26th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[22]  Rayadurgam Srikant,et al.  Modeling and performance analysis of BitTorrent-like peer-to-peer networks , 2004, SIGCOMM 2004.

[23]  Meng Zhang,et al.  Large-scale live media streaming over peer-to-peer networks through global internet , 2005, P2PMMS'05.

[24]  Ben Y. Zhao,et al.  HPTP: Relieving the Tension between ISPs and P2P , 2007, IPTPS.

[25]  Baochun Li,et al.  Lava: A Reality Check of Network Coding in Peer-to-Peer Live Streaming , 2007, IEEE INFOCOM 2007 - 26th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[26]  R. Rejaie,et al.  Adaptive Multi-Source Streaming in Heterogeneous Peer-to-Peer Networks , 2005 .

[27]  Reza Rejaie,et al.  Adaptive multisource streaming in heterogeneous peer-to-peer networks , 2005, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[28]  Klara Nahrstedt,et al.  RandPeer: Membership Management for QoS Sensitive Peer-to-Peer Applications , 2006, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2006. 25TH IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[29]  Jin Li,et al.  Mutualcast: An Efficient Mechanism for One-To-Many Content Distribution , 2005 .