Wireless Adaptive Video Streaming With Edge Cloud - Hindawi
HindawiWireless Communications and Mobile ComputingVolume 2018, Article ID 1061807, 13 pageshttps://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1061807Research ArticleWireless Adaptive Video Streaming with Edge CloudKristofer R. Smith,1 Hang Liu,1 Li-Tse Hsieh,1 Xavier de Foy,2 and Robert Gazda31Department of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USAInterDigital Canada Ltée, Montreal, QC, Canada3InterDigital Communications, Inc., Conshohocken, PA, USA2Correspondence should be addressed to Hang Liu; liuh@cua.eduReceived 7 September 2018; Accepted 22 November 2018; Published 5 December 2018Academic Editor: Petros NicopolitidisCopyright 2018 Kristofer R. Smith et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properlycited.Wireless data traffic, especially video traffic, continues to increase at a rapid rate. Innovative network architectures and protocolsare needed to improve the efficiency of data delivery and the quality of experience (QoE) of mobile users. Mobile edge computing(MEC) is a new paradigm that integrates computing capabilities at the edge of the wireless network. This paper presents acomputation-capable and programmable wireless access network architecture to enable more efficient and robust video contentdelivery based on the MEC concept. It incorporates in-network data processing and communications under a unified softwaredefined networking platform. To address the multiple resource management challenges that arise in exploiting such integration,we propose a framework to optimize the QoE for multiple video streams, subject to wireless transmission capacity and in-networkcomputation constraints. We then propose two simplified algorithms for resource allocation. The evaluation results demonstratethe benefits of the proposed algorithms for the optimization of video content delivery.1. IntroductionMobile multimedia content, especially video traffic, has beengrowing at a rapid pace. It is anticipated that global mobilevideo traffic will increase 11-fold from 2016 to 2021, reaching23 exabytes per month and accounting for 75 percent of totalmobile data traffic by 2021 [1]. Innovative network architectures and protocols are needed to improve the efficiencyof data delivery and the quality of experience (QoE) ofmobile users. The trend of combining advanced informationtechnology and communications is creating unprecedentedopportunity for innovation when designing network-centricservices. The rapid growth in cloud computing is an outcomeof such integration. However, the traditional cloud computing model that depends on centralized data centers has manylimitations. For example, a mobile device may experiencevarying wireless connectivity due to mobility, interference,and wireless traffic load. The content service provider andits cloud data centers are far away and simultaneously servemany users, making it difficult to adapt traffic (video codingrate) to dynamic wireless network conditions.To address the shortcomings of data centers, a newparadigm, mobile edge computing (MEC), also termed fogcomputing, has recently gained attention in both academiaand industry [2–6], which integrates computing and storagecapabilities at the edge of the network, near mobile users,to provide real-time radio-aware services and enhance userexperience. MEC servers or microcloud with computing,storage, and communication capabilities can be deployed toprocess data in the wireless access networks, e.g., adaptingvideo rates to changing network conditions, to improve theQoE of video streaming.The ability to dynamically program and reconfigurenetworks is essential for improving quality of service (QoS)and ensuring efficient content delivery. Software-definednetworking (SDN) is considered to be a key technologyenabler for meeting these requirements [7–10]. Decouplingthe data plane and control plane in SDN along with anopen interface enables network administrators to have programmable control of network traffic, thereby flexibly andpredictably routing specific data flows, as well as extendingnetwork functions. However, SDN is currently only used to
2Wireless Communications and Mobile Computingcontrol forwarding and routing of data flows. It does notoffer logic to control in-network computation and lacks thecapability to handle network-aware processing.In this paper, we propose a wireless access networkarchitecture based on the MEC and SDN concepts, calledCloudEdge, for more efficient and robust video streaming andcontent delivery. CloudEdge turns a wireless access networkinto a programmable microcloud, integrating in-networkdata processing capabilities with wireless access and an openinterface. Computing servers can be deployed in the wirelessaccess network, and various resources are controlled by a unified orchestration platform to fully exploit the potential of innetwork processing to enhance user experience and optimizetraffic in the network. For example, if a user is receiving videostreamed to his mobile device and his wireless connectiondeteriorates due to congestion, mobility, and/or interference,the subsequent video objects can be automatically routedto a virtual server instance in the wireless access networkthat transcodes the video objects to match the current radiochannel conditions. The transcoded video objects are thenforwarded to the mobile user. This ensures that the mobileuser will get the best available QoE given the existing wirelessnetwork conditions.With integrated in-network data processing and wirelessdelivery, it is possible for the network to optimize the overallperformance based on the demands of multiple users. Toachieve this potential, multiple resources in the networkincluding bandwidth and CPU cycles need to be carefullymanaged. Realizing such system performance optimization ischallenging because multiple resources are shared by multipleusers whose wireless channels are dynamic and QoS requirements are diverse. We develop a multiresource managementsolution in this paper to demonstrate the benefits of theproposed system architecture. Specifically, we formulate aframework to optimize the QoE of multiple video streams,subject to wireless channel bandwidth and in-network videotranscoding capability constraints.We focus on wireless video content delivery as an exampleapplication in this paper. However, the architecture and techniques developed here are expected to be useful in the designto support other types of applications, e.g., video surveillanceand smart traffic control, as well, and such a computationcapable and programmable networking paradigm will enablea range of new applications.The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2describes the proposed CloudEdge system architecture. InSection 3, the optimal resource management framework formultiple video streams is derived. Section 4 proposes twosimplified algorithms for resource management. The evaluation methods and results are given in Section 5. Section 6summarizes the related work. Finally, Section 7 concludes thepaper and discusses future work.access networks, e.g., cellular networks or WiFi hotspots,which will host virtual instances to dynamically perform customized computations on data as needed, as well as cache processed data while delivering it. The computation and storagehardware, such as general-purpose CPUs, GPUs, memory,flash storage, and specialized pluggable video transcoders,may be integrated into or colocated with base stations (BSs),access points (APs), backhaul switches, and routers. Networkoperators may also deploy dedicated microclouds or cloudletsin the wireless access networks. Such a computation-capableand programmable access network is able to provide not onlydata forwarding but in-network data processing with wirelessnetwork awareness and low latency, supporting various applications with rich services at the edge. The following principlesare used in CloudEdge design:2. System ArchitectureCloudEdge can be implemented as an overlay on conventional IP networks, and it can also be compatible with namebased future network architectures [12–14]. In this paper,we focus on a specific use case, in-network rate adaptationof streaming video, to describe the CloudEdge design inThe CloudEdge system architecture design takes on a network service-centric model. We envision that distributedcomputing and storage resources can be deployed in wireless(i) Decoupling of the data plane and control plane, as wellas the hardware and software. Thus, traffic flows canbe routed with greater flexibility, and software-basedimplementations of in-network services and applications can run on general-purpose or specializedhardware platforms.(ii) Unified control. Wireless transmission, traffic routing,in-network data processing, and caching are managedby a single (logically) centralized controller. Extending the SDN concept, the controller takes a unified,network-wide view to generate configurations andpolicy rules for all traffic as well as in-networkservices. The bandwidth, computation, and storageresources can be abstracted and shared by multiple applications. This is different from standalonemiddleboxes [11], where each box or applicationis managed independently with little extensibility.Given the power of modern computing devices, aswell as the potential scale of a wireless access network,the redundant clusters may be used as the controllerplatform [8, 9] to address single-point failure andscalability concerns.(iii) Open interface. The resources in the wireless accessnetwork can be used by the network operator toprovide in-network services. Such services could beuser-requested services and/or transparent services.The latter is activated by the network automaticallybased on the preset rules. In addition, the networkinfrastructure can be virtualized, and the resourcescan be used to host third-party services as virtualinstances through an open interface. This will simplifythe service deployment for the third-parties andgenerate extra revenue for the network operator.(iv) Name-based network management. Each device, service, content item, resource, and interface are givena unique name that is used for reachability andmanagement.
Wireless Communications and Mobile Computingmore detail and demonstrate its benefits. We consider videobecause it is the predominant traffic in networks, and it willgreatly benefit from in-network adaptation services.Figure 1 illustrates the high-level system diagram of aCloudEdge wireless access network. Mobile users connect tothe wireless access network through WiFi or cellular radios.The AP/BS is enhanced to report measured radio parameters,such as the link data rate of each mobile user and currentbandwidth usage to the CloudEdge controller. The AP/BSalso receives configuration commands from the controller. Toreduce the controller load, the MAC function is split betweenthe controller and the AP/BS. The controller provides thehigh-level policy such as the maximum share of channel timethat can be used to transmit a particular data flow. The AP/BSwill implement the schedule to transmit data using standardwireless protocols such as IEEE 802.11, 3GPP 4G Long-TermEvolution (LTE), or emerging 5G New Radio (NR), based onthe resource allocation policy.The bandwidth and computation resources can be virtualized and dynamically shared by different applications andservices. The CloudEdge controller will monitor and manageall the resources in the wireless access network. All of thedevices, such as routers, switches, APs/BSs, and computationservers have separate control and data interfaces. The controlinterfaces are used to communicate with the controller,reporting the resource usage and service status, and receivingcommands from the controller. The controller also has anopen interface for external applications that allows thirdparty application/content providers to lease resources anddeploy their own services.Each of the network-attached objects in CloudEdge,including devices, contents, services, applications, and interfaces, is assigned a unique identifier. A hierarchical namingscheme is used [12]. The identifier of a content object(CO), e.g., a video segment, is presented in a binarycoded format of /Publisher.Com/MovieTitle/SegmentID.Every deployed service is identified by a unique serviceidentifier (SID) that could look like the following: /WirelessNetID/TranscodingServiceID. The CloudEdge controllermaintains the mapping between the SID and the serviceresources. The controller is responsible for both establishingthe data routing path and managing the in-network dataprocessing.When the edge router in CloudEdge receives a CO, itchecks whether the rules have been set up to forward thisCO in its forwarding table based on the CO header. Ifso, it will follow the rules to forward the CO to the nexthop. Otherwise, it will buffer the CO and forward only theCO header to the controller through its control interface.The controller will then make the decision based on theresources demanded by the CO and the resources availablein the wireless access network. If there is not enough wirelessbandwidth to transmit the CO to the user, or an in-networkservice; e.g., video coding format change has been requestedby the original sender (the CO header contains a requestedSID); the controller will instruct the edge router to send theCO to the transcoding service for processing by adding acommand field in the CO header and sending the headerback to the edge router. The command field contains the3CloudEdge AP/BSEdge RouterCloudEdgeContentServerMicro-Cloud& TranscoderFigure 1: CloudEdge system overview.routing rules from the edge router to the transcoder, andthe rules for how to process the CO, such as the format,resolution, and data rate that the video content needs to betranscoded to, as well as the route from the transcoder to theuser. The CO will be forwarded to the transcoder, and thetranscoder reduces the video resolution and data rate per thecontroller’s instruction. The transcoded video is then sent tothe AP/BS that forwards to the user. If there is enough wirelessbandwidth to forward the CO to the user and no in-networkdata processing is requested for the CO, the controller willinstruct the edge router to directly forward the CO data tothe user through the AP/BS by adding a source route in theCO header before sending the modified CO header to theedge router over the control interface. The controller mayinstruct the edge router and AP/BS to handle additional COsbelonging to the same content flow or user with the samerules until such rules are modified or expired. Then the edgerouter does not have to send the CO headers of the relatedsubsequent COs to the controller.3. Resource Management and OptimizationTo address the new multiresource management challengesthat arise when exploiting in-network transcoding serviceto optimize overall performance of video delivery in awireless access network, we propose a framework in thissection. The framework optimizes the allocation of wirelessnetwork resources and determines the transcoding rate foreach stream to maximize the average QoE of multiple videostreams, subject to the available wireless bandwidth andcomputation constraints of the CloudEdge transcoder.3.1. Desired and Realized Quality of Experience. Users mayhave heterogeneous mobile devices with different video processing and display capabilities. This makes the calculationof the QoE for a specific user under a given scenario verydifficult. In addition, QoE has become a changing scale astechnology advances, because what was considered the bestvideo quality a few years ago is now only second rate. This ledus to the concepts of desired QoE (DeQoE) and final realizedQoE (ReQoE). DeQoE represents the QoE that a user desiresor requests according to his device capability and context.
4Wireless Communications and Mobile ComputingCloudEdgeControllerEdge RouterMobileUsersAccess PointMicro-Cloud &TranscoderControl communicationsData traffic being transcodedData traffic not being transcodedFigure 2: CloudEdge operation.Table 1: ITU MOS mapping to user satisfaction rating.User RatingVery satisfiedSatisfiedSome users satisfiedMany users dissatisfiedNearly all users dissatisfiedNot .0-2.6ReQoE is the realized QoE that the user obtains relative to hisdesired QoE. DeQoE and ReQoE can be used to make moreaccurate QoE measurements across a wide range of devicesand scenarios, where 푅 푒 푄 표 퐸 퐷 푒 푄 표 퐸, and in an ideal case, 푅 푒 푄 표 퐸 퐷 푒 푄 표 퐸.In order to quantify the QoE, Mean Opinion Scores(MOS) are often used. Table 1 shows the MOS values ofstreaming video for different degrees of user satisfaction, asdefined by International Telecommunications Union (ITU)[15, 16]. It is assumed that if the resolution a user receivesdrops by one level from his requested quality, the MOSdecreases a quality level as well. This conjecture results inTable 2. For example, if a user requests a streaming video ata resolution of 1080p and he receives 1080p video, the userhas a ReQoE of 4.5 or Very Satisfied. If a user receives 720pvideo when his desired QoE is 1080p, that user has a ReQoEof 4.3 or Satisfied. Here the ReQoE is based solely on thechange in resolution, if any, between the received and desiredresolutions. In this case, we assume no packet loss. The impactof packet loss will be discussed later.3.2. CloudEdge Operations. Figure 2 shows the CloudEdgeoperations. First, N users request video streams; the controller then queries the AP/BS for the radio link data ratebetween each of the users and the AP/BS, while simultaneously querying the transcoder for its available computationresources. Next, the controller uses the queried informationto calculate the settings to optimize the average ReQoE of allthe users based on the algorithms described below. Then, thecontroller redirects the requested video streams that are tobe transcoded to the transcoder, configures the transcoderwith the video transcoding parameters of each stream, andconfigures the AP/BS channel utilization time for each user.3.3. Problem Formulation. We consider that N video streamsare sent to the users. If there is not enough wireless bandwidthto transmit the N video streams at the quality that the usersrequested, then the video will be rerouted to the transcoderfor rate adaptation. Due to the design of our system, thereare two primary constraints. The first is the wireless channelbandwidth, which limits the maximum throughput of theAP/BS. The second constraint is the computation poweravailable to the transcoder in the CloudEdge.Adaptive modulation and forward error correctionschemes are typically used in data transmission by the AP/BS[17]. The link transmission rate for a user depends on itsSignal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR). For example, for 802.11g, theuser data rate will be 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, or 54 Mbps,dependent upon the channel SNR value. Assume that videostream i is sent to user i and its data transmission rate is 푟𝑖 .Let 훼𝑖 (0 훼𝑖 1) denote the channel utilization, i.e., theshare of time that the AP/BS uses the wireless channel totransmit video stream i. Then the throughput of stream i is 푇𝑖 훼𝑖 푟𝑖 . The data transmission should meet the wirelesschannel utilization constraint; that is,𝑁 훼𝑖 1.(1)𝑖 1Assume that 푐𝑖 units of processing cycle are needed ifstream i is transcoded. We define 푥𝑖 as a variable to indicatewhether stream i is transcoded ( 푥𝑖 1) or not ( 푥𝑖 0). Thenthe transcoding constraint is𝑁 푐𝑖 푥𝑖 퐶,(2)𝑖 1where C is the total available processing cycles.As shown in Figure 3, the desired video rate, i.e., the userrequested rate for video stream i, is 푆𝑑𝑖 , and the video rate
Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing5Table 2: ReQoE of video.Using the MOS Upper Limit1080p720p480p360pDesiredReQoE Based on Received vs. Desired Video ResolutionReceived1080p720p4.54.34.5-Table 3: Standard bitrates for YouTube.com.Type1080p720p480p360pVideo Bitrate8,000 kbps5,000 kbps2,500 kbps1,000 kbps Audio Bitrate384 kbps384 kbps128 kbps128 kbpsResolution1920 10801280 720854 480640 360If transcoded ,else MobileUsersAccessPointMicro-Cloud &Transcoder 480p4.04.34.5-360p3.64.04.34.5streaming data rate as recommended by YouTube [18], whichis shown in Table 3. Thus, the problem becomes a nonlinearinteger programing (NLIP) problem. We can then employan exhaustive search algorithm to determine the optimalallocation of wireless channel utilization and transcoding ratefor each video stream. We will also propose the simplifiedapproximation algorithms in the next section. If there isenough wireless bandwidth to meet the requirements of allthe video streams at the quality desired by the users, thatis, constraints (1), (4), and (5) are satisfied, no transcodingis necessary. The incoming video data is then directly forwarded to the users via the AP/BS. Otherwise, transcodingis performed based on the determined rates. Note that one ormore video streams may be dropped if the AP/BS is unable tosupport the data rate required to provide the minimum videoresolution of 360p.Figure 3: In-network video transcoding and wireless delivery.4. Approximation Algorithms 푆𝑡𝑖 .after transcoding isThe transcoder can reduce the videoresolution, i.e., decreasing the video rate. Then we have 푆𝑡𝑖 푆𝑑𝑖 푖 푓 푥𝑖 1 ( 푡 푟 푎 푛 푠 푐 표 푑 푖 푛 푔) , and(3) 푆𝑡𝑖 푆𝑑𝑖 푖 푓 푥𝑖 0 ( 푛 표 푡 푟 푎 푛 푠 푐 표 푑 푖 푛 푔) .(4)Let 훿 denote the protocol overhead, which includes thevideo object header, the lower layer headers, and overhead totransmit video data; then, the required bandwidth to transmitthe video stream is 푇𝑖 훼𝑖 푟𝑖 훿 푆𝑡𝑖 .(5)The objective is to optimize the average ReQoE for allvideo streams transmitted by the AP/BS. The ReQoE is basedon the received versus desired video resolution, and thereceived video resolution translates to required bandwidth.The objective can thus be formulated asmax 푅 푒 푄 표 퐸𝑖 ( 훼𝑖 , 푆𝑡𝑖 ) ,𝑖(6)subject to wireless bandwidth constraint (1), transcodingconstraint (2), as well as constraints (3), (4), and (5).In general, ReQoE is a nonlinear function of 푆𝑡𝑖 and 훼𝑖 .This is then a mixed integer nonlinear programing (MINLP)problem, which is nondeterministic polynomial-time (NP)hard. In this paper, we consider a set of the standard videoresolutions, with each video resolution having a targetedDue to the complexity of determining the above nonlinearoptimum solution of ReQoE, we propose two simplifiedapproximation algorithms in this section, and their performance will be compared to that of the optimum solution inthe next section.4.1. Throughput Maximization Algorithm. Instead of maximizing ReQoE, we determine the wireless channel utilizationallocation and transcoding rate of each video stream tomaximize the total AP/BS throughput. The throughput maximization algorithm is a linear programming (LP) problem,which can be solved in polynomial time [19]. The throughputmaximization problem can be formulated asmax 훼𝑖 푟𝑖(7)𝑖𝑁subject to: 훼𝑖 1(8)𝑖 1𝑁 푐𝑖 푥𝑖 퐶(9)𝑖 1{1 푥𝑖 {0{ 훼𝑖 푟𝑖 훿 푆𝑡𝑖 푆𝑡𝑖 푆𝑑𝑖 푆𝑡𝑖 푆𝑑𝑖(10)(11)
6Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing% N: total number of video streams% 푆𝑑𝑖 : Desired video rate, i.e., the user requested%rate for video stream i% 푆𝑡𝑖 : Data rate after optimization or transcoded%video rate (min means the data rate required to%provide the minimum video resolution of 360p; 0%means video stream i is dropped)% 푟𝑖 : Link data rate between AP/BS and user i% 훿: Protocol and header overhead% 훼𝑖 : Channel utilization of stream i% 푐𝑖 : Processing cycles needed for transcoding% 푥𝑖 : transcoded ( 푥𝑖 1) or not ( 푥𝑖 0)% C: the total available processing cycles(1) for 푖 1 : 푁% Initialization(2) 훼𝑖 훿 푆𝑑𝑖 / 푟𝑖 ;; 푆𝑡𝑖 푆𝑑𝑖 ; 푥𝑖 0(3) end𝑁(4) 퐼 푓 𝑖 1 훼𝑖 1 then(5)break;% no transcoding(6) else(7)sort the users’ link data rate, i.e., 푟𝑖 푟𝑗 , if 푖 푗;(8) 푖 1;(9)while (1)𝑡(10)if (( 𝑁𝑗 1 푐𝑗 푥𝑗 푐𝑖 ) 퐶 ‖ 푥𝑖 1) && 푆𝑖 ̸ 푚 푖 푛 then(11)% transcoding cycles available(12)reduce stream 푖 resolution by one level(13)stream i transcoded and 푥𝑖 1(14)else if 푆𝑡𝑗 푚 푖 푛 for all transcoded streams &&(15)( 푆𝑡𝑖 1 0 ‖ 푖 1)(16)stream i dropped, 푆𝑡𝑖 0 and 푥𝑖 0(17)end(18) 훼𝑖 훿 푆𝑡𝑖 / 푟𝑖 ;𝑁(19)If 𝑖 1 훼𝑖 1 then(20)break;(21)else 푖 ;(22)if 푖 푁 then 푖 1;(23) end(24) endAlgorithm 1: Heuristic iterative ReQoE optimization.Although the throughput maximization algorithm is simple, the maximization of AP/BS throughput does not meanthe optimization of the average ReQoE, and the algorithmtends to allocate more channel times to the users withhigher link data rate. In order to improve upon the basicthroughput maximization algorithm, we design a heuristiciterative algorithm, presented in the next subsection, whichattempts to fairly distribute available wireless bandwidth tothe users and achieve a high average QoE.4.2. Heuristic Iterative Algorithm. As shown in Algorithm 1,if there is enough wireless bandwidth to transmit all Nvideo streams at the quality each user desires or requests,no transcoding is needed and all the video streams willbe forwarded directly to the users. Otherwise, the heuristiciterative algorithm will lower the video resolution of a streamby one level if the transcoder has enough computation cyclesto do so. The algorithm starts from the stream with the worstwireless link data rate because it requires the most channeltime to transmit a certain amount of data. The algorithmchecks whether there is enough wireless bandwidth to transmit all the video streams each time a video stream rate isreduced. If not, it will lower the stream with the next worselink data rate by one level. The process continues. Once theresolution of all the streams has been lowered by one level,if the wireless bandwidth is still insufficient to transmit thevideo streams, the algorithm begins the next round, startingfrom the stream with the lowest link data rate and thenstreams with the order of increasing link rate. If the resolutionof all the transcoded streams is lowered to the minimum(360p in our scenario) but they still cannot be supported,some streams will be dropped, starting from the one with theworst link rate. This process continues until the resolutionof the video streams that can be delivered with the availablewireless bandwidth are discovered.This algorithm attempts to fairly distribute the availablewireless bandwidth to the users. It does not reduce anystream resolution by two levels until all other streams have
Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing7been lowered by one level. The algorithm’s primary goalis to ensure as many users as possible receive video, andits secondary goal is to provide the best video resolutionpossible, within the wireless bandwidth and transcodingcomputation constraints. This heuristic algorithm lowers theresolution of a stream by one level each iteration until it findsa feasible solution. Hence, its complexity is 푂( 푁 퐾) for Nstreams and K resolution levels.5. Evaluation ResultsIn this section, we evaluate the performance of the proposedresource allocation algorithms and show the simulationresults to unveil the impact of in-network processing onvideo delivery quality using edge cloud. We consider N videostreams sent to the users through the proposed CloudEdgewireless access network. The radio access protocol is assumedto be IEEE 802.11g, and the link data rate for transmitting avideo stream is determined using a practical link adaptationalgorithm [20] based on the end user’s channel SNR. Weassume that users will request a desired video resolutionbased on their device capability and that the video server iscapable of sending the desired resolution.In order to establish a baseline for comparison of aCloudEdge network that can transcode users’ video streamsand a basic wireless network that cannot, we consider theeffect of packet loss on the average QoE of a video stream. Ifthere is no transcoding to adjust the video rate, the data thatis above the AP wireless channel capacity would be dropped.In [16], the authors present a model on the quantitativerelationship between QoE score and packet loss and give theparameters based on the curve fitting of actual datasets. Basedon this model, we use the following function to calculate theimpact of the packet loss on the QoE value of a video stream, 푄 표 퐸 3.010 푒 4.473 𝑃𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑡 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠 1.49(12)To compare the performance of different algorithms,including optimal ReQoE, throughput maximization algorithm, heuristic iterative algorithm, and the baseline withno transcoding, a number of network scenarios have beensimulated. We present the results for some typical scenariosbelow.5.1. Impact of In-Network Transcoding. Figures 4 and 5 showthe average ReQoE versus the number of video streamswith in-network transcoding using our heuristic iterativealgorithm and without transcoding. Each figure presents twoscenarios, one with all users desiring to stream video at aresolution of 1080p, and the other with all users desiringto stream video at a resolution of 720p, as labeled in thegraph. In Figure 4, all users are connecting to the AP withthe same link data rate, and, in Figure 5, users have differentlink data rates to the AP. We have assumed in this simulationthat the transcoder is able to process as many video streamsas needed to achieve the best average ReQoE. The impactof limited transcoding capacity will be shown later. InFigure 4, the simulation results show that when the numberof video streams increases and there is not enough wirelessbandwidth to transmit the video streams at their originalquality/data rate, employing in-network transcoding to lowert
% N:total number of video streams % :Desired video rate, i.e., the user requested % rate for video stream i % :Data rate after optimization or transcoded % video rate (min means the data rate required to % provide the minimum video resolution of 360p; 0 % means video stream i is dropped) % : Link data rate between AP/BS and user i
line video streaming is Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) that provides uninterrupted video streaming service to user-s with dynamic network conditions and heterogeneous devices. No-tably, Netflix's online video streaming service is implemented us-Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
Requirement on streaming video Smooth quality)smooth throughput)smooth sending rate No "pause")prefer non-window based rate control TCP doesn't suit for streaming video Huge variation in sending rate Window based control Unnecessary retransmission M. Chen, EE290T : rate control for streaming video - from wired to wireless - p. 9/45
OTT STREAMING VIDEO PLAYBOOK FOR ADVANCED MARKETERS 7. OTT Streaming Video vs. CTV (They're Not the Same Thing) While OTT streaming video content can be seen on any internet-connected screen, the majority of OTT streaming viewing—at least in the U.S.—occurs on a connected TV. For example, 80% of Hulu viewing
video server, server-client transmission, and a video client, Zeus can be easily replicated for future live 360 video streaming studies . limited insight to live 360 video streaming. Live 360 video streaming. Jun et al. [33] investigated the YouTube
Using Cross Products Video 1, Video 2 Determining Whether Two Quantities are Proportional Video 1, Video 2 Modeling Real Life Video 1, Video 2 5.4 Writing and Solving Proportions Solving Proportions Using Mental Math Video 1, Video 2 Solving Proportions Using Cross Products Video 1, Video 2 Writing and Solving a Proportion Video 1, Video 2
Sybase Adaptive Server Enterprise 11.9.x-12.5. DOCUMENT ID: 39995-01-1250-01 LAST REVISED: May 2002 . Adaptive Server Enterprise, Adaptive Server Enterprise Monitor, Adaptive Server Enterprise Replication, Adaptive Server Everywhere, Adaptive Se
Video streaming occupies more than 75% of the whole Internet bandwidth and it is predicted that the growth will persist [3]. The resources required to provide video streams are also increasing. High quality video (such as 4K Ultra High-De nition/UHD) and advanced video streaming (such as 360 degree videos, motion tracking, face
Pearson BTEC Level 2 Diploma for Early Years Practitioners 8 5 Programme delivery 9 Elements of good practice 9 6 Centre resource requirements 11 7 Access and recruitment 12 Prior knowledge, skills and understanding 12 Access to qualifications for learners with disabilities or specific needs 12 8 Assessment 13 Language of assessment 13 Internal assessment 13 Assessment strategy 14 Types of .
