Measure and Model P2P Streaming System by Buffer Bitmap
Yishuai Chen, Changjia Chen, Chunxi Li
School of Electrical and Information Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University
chenyishuai@gmail.com, changjiachen@sina.com, cxl@telecom.njtu.edu.cn
Abstract
The correct evaluation of P2P streaming system
models needs the validation in real world system.
However, there is lack of systematic and integrated
measurement method for real world P2P streaming
system. In this paper, we propose a P2P streaming
network measurement method based on a peer's buffer
occupancy probability. Our method is based on the
fixed duration buffer property of commercial P2P
streaming systems. We prove the measured buffer
occupancy probability reflects the chunk propagation
process in the P2P network. We then propose a P2P
streaming chunk propagation model and verify it in the
commercial P2P streaming network using our
measurement method. Our measurement method is
useful for measuring and analyzing miscellaneous P2P
streaming systems. And our model and parameter
estimation are useful for existing P2P simulators to
choose correct parameters and are meaningful for
researchers to understand the real meaning behind the
parameters.
1. Introduction
Recently, P2P live streaming systems have received
a lot of attention. On the industrial side, commercial
P2P live streaming systems are prevailing. For
example, PPLive [1], a popular P2P online video
broadcasting and advertising network, has had 75
million global installed base, 20 million monthly active
users and more than 600 channels [2]. On the academic
side, more and more research work has been reported
in this area. For example, in August 2007, a special
P2P streaming and IP-TV workshop was organized in
Sigcom 2007 to discuss P2P streaming related research
topics, and in December 2007, a special IEEE JSAC
volume was organized to report the latest advances in
P2P streaming systems
1
This work was supported by China 973 2007CB307101, China
NSFC 60672069 and China NSFC 60772043
Compared with the huge advancement in
development and deployment of miscellaneous P2P
streaming systems, there is still huge space for the
research and development of appropriate theoretical
model. However, most of existing work in this area
started with assumptions and ended with performance
evaluation by simulation. There is still lack of
appropriate measurement methods to validate both the
assumptions and the results of the model in real world
P2P streaming system. This problem has hampered the
advancement of P2P streaming network related
research because the correct evaluation of models and
right application of their results require validation in
real world systems. However, simple observation of
phenomenon in real world network does not help
because the model is always abstracted from the
concrete details of implementation and can only get
general conclusions. We need more original angle of
view and more in-depth measurement and data
processing methods to finish this work.
In this paper, based on our measurement finding of
the synchronization between peer’s cache rejection and
media server’s chunk upload on chunk offset in
commercial P2P steaming system [3], we firstly
explore the characteristics of the dynamic of the buffer
length in commercial P2P streaming system. We find
the buffer length kept stable when the playback rate
does not change. And, when the playback rate changes,
it smoothly transits to the new value. This stable
characteristic makes the continuous measurement and
observation of a peer’s buffer bitmap series
meaningful.
We then design the P2P streaming system
measurement method based on the peer’s buffer
occupancy probability distribution. In detail, we firstly
continuously track a peer’s buffer bitmap and obtain a
matrix-like buffer bitmap array, then obtain the buffer
occupancy probability distribution of this matrix. We
find all peers in same P2P streaming network have
similar buffer occupancy probability distributions.
Therefore, we infer that the buffer occupancy
probability distribution of a peer in fact reflects some
general characteristics of the P2P network. We then
establish the mapping relationship between the chunk
position in the buffer and the chunk arriving time since
its upload at the media server. With this relationship,
we establish the mapping relationship between the
buffer occupancy probability distribution and a
chunk’s propagation process in the P2P network. We
also verify this relationship in our PPLive
measurement trace.
We then model the chunk propagation process in
P2P streaming network by splitting it into two phases
and also verify the obtained model with the measured
buffer occupancy probability distribution in PPLive.
The result shows the correctness of the model and the
potential of our measurement method.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we
introduce related work. In Section 3, we analyze the
dynamic of buffer length by mathematical model and
verify the result in our trace. In Section 4, we present
our measurement of buffer occupancy probability and
then prove its mapping relationship to the chunk
propagation process in the network. Section 5 is the
chunk propagation model and its verification in
PPLive’s trace with our measurement method. Section
6 concludes the paper.
2. Related work
For the P2P streaming system modeling, [4]
presented a mathematical model based on the sliding
peer buffer behavior, i.e. each peer maintains a buffer
which acts as a sliding window into the stream of
chunks distributed by the server. It also introduced the
notion of buffer occupancy probability and established
the model based on this notion. With the established
model, it discussed different data-driven downloading
strategies. Our measurement finding of the stable
buffer behavior validates their sliding window
assumption in real world P2P streaming system. [5]
developed a stochastic fluid model and investigated the
affect of peers’ upload capacity and joining/departing
rate for P2P streaming system. [6] introduced the
notion of production for P2P streaming system and
investigated the possibly achievable system production
with different protocols. [7] presented an in-depth
quantitative analysis of the proposed CDN(content
distribution network)-P2P mixed streaming network. It
split the chunk propagation process in P2P network
into 2 phases and obtained the mathematical solution
of the system handoff time. With the inspiration of this
2-Phase modeling method, we establish the P2P chunk
propagation model and verify it in real world P2P
streaming network. [8] derived an equation to describe
the capacity growth of P2P streaming system and
obtained the server-peer transition time in fixed
request rate.
For the P2P streaming system measurement, [9]
measured the traffic characteristics of controlled peers
of PPLive in Oct 2005 and Dec 2005 and found the
high rate of change of parents. [10] inferred the
network-wide quality of PPLive by actively crawling
peers’ buffer maps. [11] investigated the overlay-based
characteristics of PPLive by crawling peers’ partner
lists. [12] measured PPLive’s user behavior, playback
quality and connection characteristics.
3. Dynamic of PPLive buffer length
As a typical P2P live streaming system, PPLive
network consists of media server and peers. After the
media server uploads a media chunk into the P2P
network, peers interact with each other to propagate
the chunk to the total network. The media server and
peers frequently send their buffer status information to
their partner peers for them to request chunk
accordingly. By continuously tracking the buffer status
information from a peer or media server, we can track
the dynamic of their buffer, e.g. the sliding of the
buffer head, the media server’s chunk upload rate, etc.
We model the P2P network and peer’s local buffer
as a virtual buffer as shown in Figure 1. Its end is at
the media server and head is at the head of peer’s local
buffer. When a chunk is uploaded into the network by
the media server, it is injected into the buffer at the end.
Then it is propagated in the network until it reaches the
peer. After it reaches peer, it slides towards the buffer
head and finally reaches the buffer head and is rejected
from the buffer. Therefore, this virtual buffer includes
the P2P network and peer’s local buffer.
Output Input
Virtual Buffer
Figure 1. Virtual buffer consists of P2P
network and peer local buffer
We analyze the dynamic of the length of this virtual
buffer as below.
Let s(t) be the media server’s chunk upload service
curve. When server uploads a chunk with ID k to the
network at time t, we say s(t) = k. Let f(t) be the peer’s
chunk rejection curve. When peer rejects a chunk with
ID k from its buffer at time t, we say f(t) = k. f(t) is
usually called the offset of the buffer.
Let r(t)=ds(t)/dt be the chunk upload rate of the
media server. Because the media server usually
uploads chunks at their playback rate, we also call r(t)
as chunks’ playback rate. Similarly, we use
g(t)=df(t)/dt to denote peer’s buffer rejection rate.
Let q(t) be the buffer length at time t and let CH(t)
and CT(t) be the ID of the chunk at the buffer head and
buffer end at time t respectively. The Buffer Duration
τ(t) is defined as the time to empty the buffer if there is
no any new chunk input after time t. In other words,
the buffer duration at time t is the time interval τ(t)
such that
CH(t+τ(t))=CT(t)
A chunk rate based (CRB) buffer rejection strategy
[3] rejects a chunk from the buffer with the rate in
which it is injected into the buffer. In other words,
every chunk leaves the buffer with the rate in which it
comes.
We firstly prove following theorem.
Theorem 1. A CRB buffer is a fixed-duration
buffer, i.e. τ(t) is a constant.
Proof:
Obviously, we have
dq(t)/dt= r(t)−g(t)
With r(t) = g(t+τ(t)) for a CRB buffer, we have
dq(t)/dt= g(t+τ(t)) −g(t) (1)
Since the time interval for a media server to upload
the chunks from CH(t) to CT(t) is the same as the time
interval for a peer to drain chunks from CH(t) to CT(t)
from its buffer in a CBR strategy, we have
q (t ) = ∫tt +τ g (ν )dν
Taking divertive of it, we have
dq (t ) dt = (1 + dτ dt ) g (t + τ ) − g (t )
Substituting it into equation (1), we have:
dτ(t)/dt=0
Thus we have proved ■
We validated this fixed-duration buffer behavior in
our measured PPLive trace. The detailed result was
reported in [3].
We study the dynamic of the buffer length when r(t)
changes from a to a+b at t = t0. i.e. r(t)=a+bu(t−t0). u(t)
is the unit step input.
On the time domain, with r(t)=a+bu(t−t0), we have
dqτ(t)/dt=bu(t−t0)−bu(t−t0−τ).
The buffer length can be written as:
⎧qτ (t 0 ), t = t 0−
⎪ 3). The longer the buffer length before the change,
qτ (t ) = ⎨qτ (t 0 ) + b(t − t 0 ), t 0+ ≤ t ≤ (τ + t 0 ) −
⎪q (t ) + bτ , t ≥ (τ + t ) +
⎩ τ 0 0
Therefore, we can obtain following characteristics
of the dynamic of the buffer length on the time domain.
1). All peers start changing their buffer length at the
same time when r(t) changes, i.e. at t0.
2). The time required for the change finishing is
equal to the buffer duration τ. Because different peers
have different buffer duration, they finish the change
of the buffer length at different time. The longer the
buffer length before the change, the later the change
finishes, and hence the longer the time interval of
change.
3). When t = t0 +τ, all peers finish the change of the
buffer length. The finishing time is exactly the
changing time of the buffer rejection rate.
We also study the dynamic of the buffer length on
the offset domain. The “offset” here is the chunk ID of
the buffer head, i.e. f(t).
Assume media server starts uploading chunk at t =
0. The ID of the first uploaded chunk is s0. When r(t)
changes from a to a+b at t=t0, i.e.
s(t)=s0+at+b(t−t0)u(t−t0)
Define the chunk with ID s0+at0 as the jumping
chunk of the service curve. Denote s*= s0+at0.
Because f(t)=s(t−τ)=s0+a(t−τ)+b(t−t0−τ)u(t−t0−τ),
we have qτ(f)=s(t)−f(t)=[a+bu(t−t0−τ)]τ+b(t−t0)[u(t−t0)
−u(t−t0−τ)], i.e. the change of buffer length starts from
t0 and ends at t=t0+τ.
Denote f(t0) as f0, we have
f0=s0+a(t0−τ).
Denote f(t0+τ) as f1, we have
f1=s0+at0=s*.
Between f0 and f1, we have
f=s0+a(t−τ) and t=(f−s0)/a+τ
With qτ(f)=aτ+b(t−t0), substitute t into qτ(f), we
have qτ(f)=aτ+ b[f−(s0+a(t0−τ))/a = aτ+b(f−f0)/(f1−f0))
In summary, we have
⎧⎪aτ , f = f 0−
qτ ( f ) = ⎨aτ + bτ ( f − f 0 ) ( f1 − f 0 ) , f 0+ ≤ t ≤ f1−
⎪⎩(a + b)τ , f ≥ f1+
And f0=s0+a(t0−τ) = s0+at0−aτ = s*−aτ= s*−qτ(f0−)
Therefore we can obtain following characteristics of
the dynamic of the buffer length changes on the buffer
offset.
1). All peers’ changes of buffer length are ended at
same buffer offset, i.e. at s*.
2). When peer’s buffer length starts change, the
buffer offset is smaller than the ID of the chunk who
changes the playback rate.
the smaller the buffer offset when change starts, and
the larger the offset change range.
Above characteristics of the dynamic of the buffer
length can be verified in the measured PPLive trace.
The verification result is shown in Figure 2 and Figure
3. Figure 2 shows the dynamic of 3 peers’ buffer
length and their cache rejection rates on the time
domain. Figure 3 shows the dynamic on the buffer
offset. The media server’s chunk upload rate curve is
also shown as reference. We can easily find the
characteristics in them.
Figure 2. Peer buffer length, playback rate and
offset rate changes in time domain
Figure 3. Peer buffer length, playback rate and
offset rate changes in offset domain
4. Measure P2P streaming network by
buffer bitmap
From the analysis in Section 3 we clearly observed
the stability of a peer’s buffer size, i.e. it keeps stable
when the playback rate does not change and smoothly
transits to the new value when the playback rate jumps.
Such stability makes the continuous observation and
measurement of a peer’s buffer bitmap meaningful. In
real world P2P streaming system, r(t) doesn’t change
frequently. For example, the measurement result in
Figure 2 shows the duration of r(t) = 8 is about 20min
and the duration of r(t) = 10 is longer. Therefore, the
time when buffer length keeps stable is long enough to
capture enough bitmap samples to get its statistical
characteristic. The detail of our measurement method
is demonstrated below.
During the system works in the stable status, i.e.
when r(t) doesn’t change, we periodically request
peers’ buffer bitmaps. Because the buffer size is fixed
during this time, the obtained bitmaps have same
length. We then align them at the buffer head and
order them in the sampling time. We finally obtain a
bitmap matrix as shown in Figure 4.
Chunk Position
Time
Figure 4. Peer buffer bitmap matrix
In the matrix shown in Figure 4, each column
represents a buffer bitmap sample. In each column,
each box represents a chunk in the buffer. The color of
the box indicates if the corresponding chunk is
received by the peer at the sampling time. If the chunk
has arrived, the box’s color is white, otherwise, its
color is gray.
For further analysis, we introduce following
definitions:
Chunk position - m: It is the distance of a chunk box
to the top of the matrix, i.e. the relative position of a
chunk to the buffer end.
Random indicating function of chunk occupancy at
chunk position m at time t - N(m, t): It is 1 if the chunk
at position m has been received at time t. Otherwise, it
is 0.
Occupancy probability - Pr(N(m, t)=1): It is the
probability of the chunk at position m is obtained by
the peer at time t.
 We assume Pr(N(m, t)=1) is independent of t when
system works in stable status. This assumption is
reasonable because N(m, t) is affected by two aspects
of factors which all keep stable when system works in
stable status. Firstly, it is affected by the sliding of
chunks in the buffer, i.e. as peer rejects chunks from its
buffer head, chunks slide towards the buffer head in
the buffer. Because r(t) doesn’t change and the buffer
sliding speed is equal to the playback rate, the speed of
buffer sliding also doesn’t change and the sliding is
stable. Secondly, it is affected by the arriving of new
chunks. Because peers usually have stable download
when they work in stable status, the arriving of new
chunks is also stable. Therefore, we can assume
Pr(N(m, t)=1) is independent of t and denote it as Pm.
We use below method to obtain peer’s Pm curve
from the measured bitmap matrix. For each row m in
the matrix, we count the columns whose N(m)=1.
Denote its amount as N1. We also count the columns
whose N(m)=0 and denote its amount as N0. We then
get Pm with
Pm = N1 (N 0 + N1 ) .
After extensive observation of measured Pm curves,
we found a common phenomenon, i.e. peers in same
P2P network have similar Pm curves but different P2P
networks have different Pm curves. As an example,
Figure 5 shows the Pm curves of peers in two different
P2P network. We can find peers in same network have
similar Pm curves, but peers in different networks have
different Pm curves. We infer that Pm reflects the
characteristic of different P2P networks and can be
used to investigate the P2P network.
Figure 5. Pr(N(m)=1) curves in PPLive
However, what network characteristics Pm reflects?
We re-inspect the abstract of virtual buffer.
Assume all peers in same P2P network has similar
Pm distribution, we extend the Pm distribution to the
total network. Denote Sm(t) as the amount of peers
whose N(m, t)=1 at time t. Denote M0 as the amount of
all peers in the P2P network. We have
Pm = Sm(t)/M0
Because Pm is independent of t, we have
Pm=Sm/M0
Assume a chunk is uploaded by media server at t=0
and it arrives at peer at buffer position m at time t.
Denote the buffer duration as τ and the playback rate
as r. With the analysis in Section 3, we have q(t) = rτ.
Therefore, the chunk’s sliding rate in the buffer is r
and it shall arrive at the buffer head at t=τ. And during
its sliding, it passes r(τ-t) chunk positions. i.e.
q(t) = rτ = m + r(τ-t)
And
m = rt
Denote N(t) as the amount of peers who have
obtained this chunk in the network at time t. Because
m=rt at time t. we have N(t)= Srt. Therefore, we have
Pm = N(m/r)/M0. (2)
Equation (2) discloses the mapping relationship
between the Pm distribution and the chunk propagation
process N(t) in P2P streaming network. This mapping
relationship is verified in our PPLive trace. We use
following verification method. To obtain N(t), for
every chunk, we obtain its server upload time ts and its
first appearance time in peer’s buffer bitmap tr. We use
tr as the chunk’s arriving time at the peer. Therefore,
we can get this chunk’s network transmission time to a
peer with Ts = tr-ts. With the measured Ts for all peers,
we can calculate this chunk’s N(t)/M0 distribution.
We find chunks in same P2P network have similar
N(t)/M0 distribution. We also find the measured
N(t)/M0 curve is very similar to the measured Pm
curves of peers with the mapping method shown in
equation (2). Figure 6 is an example which shows the
comparison between a chunk’s N(t)/M0 curve and a
peer’s Pm curve in one of our experiments.
We conclude that Pm reflects the characteristic of
chunk propagation process in P2P streaming network.
We then modeled this process and verified our model
using our measured Pm curve.
5. Modeling
We model the chunk propagation process in P2P
streaming network as below.
In P2P streaming system, peers periodically query
the buffer status of partner peers and the media server.
When a new chunk is found, peers request this chunk
and start a timer to wait for the chunk. If the chunk is
received, the timer shall be cleared. If chunk request In phase I, most of peers have not this chunk so
fails, the timer shall time out and peers shall request need request it, but the network’s total upload capacity
again. The request failure may be induced by the loss of this chunk is unable to satisfy these requests.
of the request or response in the network. It may also Therefore, the chunk propagation in this phase is
be induced by the overload or capacity constraint of limited by C(t) and some requests are rejected. We
the partner peer or media server. have
dN(t)/dt = C(t) = bN(t)
Assume chunk is uploaded by the media server at t
= 0. Look the media server as the first node in the
network who has this chunk, we have
N(0) = 1
Therefore we have
N (t ) = e bt
As the chunk propagates in the network and more
and more peers obtain this chunk and start to provide
the downloading of this chunk, the chunk request rate
shall decrease but C(t) shall increase. Finally, C(t)
shall be able to satisfy the requirements of all peers’
requests. Denote this transition time as t0.
Let M(t) denote the amount of peers in the network
who have not the chunk at time t. With λ as their
average chunk request rate, then the total chunk
request rate in the network is λM(t).
Figure 6. Comparision between N(t)/M0 and Pm When t = t0, we have
C(t0) = bN(t0) = λM(t0)
We make following two assumptions for the model. With N(t) + M(t) = M0, we have
The first assumption is the media server acts just like a λM 0
common peer during the chunk propagation process, N (t 0 ) =
b+λ
i.e. its upload capacity for a chunk is just like that of
bM 0
the common peer and peers do not prefer to request M (t 0 ) = (3)
chunks from the media server. This assumption is b+λ
reasonable because the decrease of the load on the Because N (t 0 ) = e bt0 , we have:
media server can bring better scalability. And this b+λ
assumption also conforms to current typical system M0 = ebt0 (4)
λ
configuration in commercial P2P network, e.g. PPLive And
[2].
1 ⎛ λM 0 ⎞
The second assumption is the network size M0 t0 = ln⎜ ⎟
keeps constant during the propagation of a chunk. It is b ⎝b+λ ⎠
reasonable because it is found that only one thousandth After the propagation of a chunk enters into phase
peers depart or join in one second [12]. And as Figure II, the propagation is only limited by peers’ chunk
6 shows, the propagation of a chunk to the total request rate λ. λ is decided by peer’s chunk request
network is usually finished in 20-30s or less. That is to strategy and its retry rate when chunk requests fail.
say, during this time, there are only 4%-6% or less Because no request is rejected now, we have:
peers change. dM (t )
Denote peers’ average upload speed as b chunk/s = −λM (t )
dt
and denote peers’ chunk request rate as λ request/s. With equation (3), we have:
Denote the amount of peers who have obtained the bM 0 −λ (t −t0 )
chunk at time t as N(t) and denote the network’s total M (t ) = M (t0 ) ⋅ e − λ (t − t 0 ) = e
upload capacity of this chunk at time t as C(t). We b+λ
have And
bM 0 −λ (t −t0 )
C(t) = bN(t). N (t ) = M 0 − M (t ) = M 0 − e
The propagation of a chunk in P2P network is split b+λ
into two phases. In summary, we have:
 ⎧ ebt t ≤ t0 increase of λ is limited compared with that brought by
⎪
N (t ) = ⎨ bM 0 increase of b. That is to say, the average upload rate b
M − e − λ ( t −t 0 ) t > t0 is a more dominant parameter affecting the system’s
⎪⎩ 0 b + λ
performance than the request rate λ. Moreover, the
Divide it with M0, we have
increase of chunk propagation time for different b is
⎧ 1 bt obvious when Pm < 0.02, which means there are not
e t ≤ t0
N (t ) ⎪⎪ M many peers acting as sources during that time.
=⎨ 0
M0 ⎪ b −λ (t −t0 ) Therefore, the increase of media server’s upload
1− e t > t0
⎩⎪ b + λ capacity in this beginning phase can bring considerable
Replace equation (4) in it, we have: improvement to the average upload speed b of the total
⎧ λ b (t −t0 ) network. And then the chunk propagation time is
N (t ) ⎪⎪ b + λ e t ≤ t0 improved accordingly.
=⎨
M 0 ⎪1 − b e −λ (t −t0 ) t > t
⎪⎩ b + λ 0 5.1. Model Verification
Replace it into equation (2), we finally have: We verified our model with the measured Pm
⎧ λ b ⎛⎜⎝ mr −t0 ⎞⎟⎠ distribution in PPLive.
⎪⎪ e m ≤ rt0 We firstly measured PPLive’s behavior to estimate
Pm = ⎨ b + λ m ranges for model parameters. The obtained parameter
⎪1 − b e −λ ( r −t0 ) m > rt0
⎪⎩ b + λ ranges are shown in the 2nd column of Table I.
The obtained Pm is shown in Figure 7. Table 1. Model Parameter
Para Estimated 070502 070604
Range
r 10 10 10
M0 1K – 20K 10K 10K
b 1-1.25 1 1.15
λ 0.15-0.4 0.19 0.35

In detail, we measured PPLive’s chunk request retry

Figure 7. Model Pm curve
From Figure 7 we can find following inspirations
for the evaluation and design of P2P live streaming
systems.
Firstly, the increase of chunk propagation time with
M0 is not linear. For example, when M0 increases from
10K to 200K, the chunk propagation time is only
increased by about one third. This characteristic
demonstrates the scalability of the P2P live streaming
system.
Secondly, the decrease of chunk propagation rate is
obvious when b increases. For example, when b
increases from 0.5 to 1.5, the chunk propagation time
is decreased by about one third. However, the
improvement of chunk propagation time brought by
behavior by passively sniffing its client’s behavior. We
found its retry probability is 10%-20% and its retry
interval can be 2.5-6s. This relatively long retry
interval makes peer rarely request same chunk from
multiple peers at the same time, therefore decreases the
duplicated receiving of chunks. Because λ is decided
by peers’ chunk request strategy and the retry rate,
assuming most of peers have tried to request the chunk
in Phase I and most of requests in Phase II are the retry
requests, we estimate λ is near to the request retry rate.
We estimated the value range of λ is 0.15-0.4.
The amount of peers in a PPLive channel varies for
different channel. It is usually in the range 1K-20K
although it can be very large at some special events
[12]. We use 10K here.
Peers’ average upload rate b is difficult to measure
by actively crawling. We estimate it with following
method. Firstly, b should be equal to or larger than the
average download rate. When system works in stable
status, peers’ average download rate is equal to the
media playback rate. Secondly, we assumed the P2P
network provider drives the utilization of peers’ upload
capacity to a relatively high value for better playback
quality. Therefore, the playback rate should be close to
the system’s average upload speed. We finally estimate
the average upload rate range is 1-1.2 times of the
playback rate.
The verification result shows our model reflects the
characteristics of the measured Pm curve in the real
world P2P live streaming system. Figure 8 shows the
result of our verification on two traces. The used
model parameters are listed in the 3rd and 4th column of
Table I respectively.
Figure 8. Verification of Models
6. Conclusion
We proposed a P2P streaming network
measurement method which is based on the buffer
bitmap. We proved its feasibility by modeling and
analyzing the dynamic of buffer length. We proved it
reflects the chunk propagation process of P2P network.
With this inspiration, we established a P2P streaming
chunk propagation model and verified it in real world
P2P live streaming system with our measurement
method. This verification also proved our measurement
method has its potential to help us analyzing and
researching P2P streaming system better.
Why the parameters λ of two traces are different
is an interesting question. On the other side, the
underlying mechanism to implement λ also has
important effect on the performance of P2P streaming
system, e.g. the quality of local media playback. We
shall do more in-depth investigation on it in the future.
7. References
[1] www.pplive.com
[2] G. Huang “Experiences with PPLive”, [Online document],
P2P-TV Workshop in conjunction with SIGCOMM 2007,
Available HTTP: http://www.sigcomm.org/
sigcomm2007/p2p-tv/Keynote-P2PTV-
GALE_PPLIVE.ppt
[3] Y. Chen, C. Chen and C. Li, "A Measurement Study of
Cache Rejection in P2P Live Streaming System",
Workshop on Multimedia Network Systems and
Applications in conjunction with ICDCS-2008, June,
2008
[4] Y. Zhou, D. M. Chiu, and John C.S Lui, "A Simple
Model for Analyzing P2P Streaming Protocols", The
fifteenth IEEE InternationalConference on Network
Protocols (ICNP 2007), Bei Jing, China, Oct. 2007
[5] R. Kumar, Y. Liu, and K. W. Ross, "Stochastic fluid
theory for P2P streaming systems," in Proceedings of
INFOCOM, 2007
[6] D. Lou, Y. Mao, and T. H. Yeap, "The production of
peer-to-peer video-streaming networks", P2P-TV
Workshop in conjunction with SIGCOMM 2007
[7] D. Xu, H.K. Chai, C. Rosenberg, and S. Kulkarni.
"Analysis of a Hybrid Architecture for Cost-Effective
Streaming Media Distribution", SPIE/ACM Conf. on
Multimedia Computing and Networking (MMCN'03),
San Jose, CA, Jan. 2003
[8] Y. Tu, J. Sun, and S. Prabhakar. "Performance Analysis
of a Hybrid Media Streaming System", SPIE/ACM Conf.
on Multimedia Computing and Networking (MMCN'04),
San Jose, CA, Jan. 2004
[9] S. Ali, A. Mathur and H. Zhang "Measurement of
Commercial Peer-To-Peer Live Video Streaming",
Workshop in Recent Advances in Peer-to-Peer Streaming,
August, 2006.
[10] X. Hei, Y. Liu, and K. W. Ross, “Inferring Network-
Wide Quality in P2P Live Streaming Systems”, [Online
document], 2007, Available HTTP:
http://eeweb.poly.edu/faculty/yongliu/docs/index-
buffermap.pdf,
[11] L. Vu, I. Gupta, J. Liang, K. Nahrstedt. "Measurement
of a Large-scale Overlay for Multimedia Streaming",
High Performance Distributed Computing (Poster -
HPDC 2007)
[12] X. Hei, C. Liang, J. Liang, Y. Liu and K. W. Ross, “A
Measurement Study of a Large Scale P2P IPTV System”,
[Online document], Nov 2006, Available HTTP:
http://cis.poly.edu/~ross/papers/P2PliveStreamingMeasur
ement.pdf