Performance of P2Cast next up previous
Next: Comparison of overlay construction Up: Performance Evaluation Previous: Notations and performance metrics

Performance of P2Cast

In this section we present and discuss our simulation results. $\bullet$ Client rejection probability. We first place the server in the transit domain (shaded node in the center of Fig. 3). We assume that the threshold of P2Cast is 10% of the video length, and every client has sufficient storage space to cache the patch. As for IP multicast-based patching, we use the optimal threshold, which is $\min\{(\sqrt{2L \lambda + 1} -1)/\lambda, L/2\}$ as derived in [2]. Fig. 4 depicts the rejection probability vs. the normalized workload for unicast, P2Cast using BF algorithm, and IP multicast-based patching. We observe that P2Cast admits more clients than unicast by a significant margin as the load increases. Also P2Cast outperforms the IP multicast-based patching, especially when the workload is high. It shows that the peer-to-peer paradigm employed in P2Cast helps to improve the scalability of P2Cast.

Figure 4: Rejection probability comparison for P2Cast, unicast, and IP multicast patching
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{file=figures/TRANSIT/rejectionprob.eps, height=1.9in, width=3in}
\end{figure}

$\bullet$ Average workload placed on network (network usage). Since some clients are rejected by the server due to bandwidth constraints, we use effective normalized workload to represent the actual workload presented by the clients.

Figure 5: Comparison of average workload posed on the network for P2Cast, unicast, and IP multicast patching
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{file=figures/TRANSIT/netusage.eps, height=1.9in, width=3in}
\end{figure}

Fig. 5 illustrates the network usage vs. the effective normalized workload. Since application-level multicast is not as efficient as native IP multicast, P2Cast places more workload on the network than IP multicast-based patching. Interestingly, we find that P2Cast has higher network usage than the unicast service approach. In [11] we plot the average hop count from the admitted clients to the server for both P2Cast and unicast. The average hop count in unicast tends to be much smaller than that in P2Cast, suggesting that a unicast-based service selectively admits clients that are closer to the server. Intuitively, clients closer to the server are more likely to have sufficient bandwidth along the path. This may explain why the network usage of a unicast service is lower than that of P2Cast. $\bullet$ Server stress. Fig. 6 shows the server stress for different schemes. The unicast server is most stressed. The server stress for P2Cast is even lower than that of IP multicast-based patching. Although the application-level multicast is not as efficient as native IP multicast, the P2P paradigm employed in P2Cast can effectively alleviate the workload placed at the server - in P2Cast, clients take the responsibility off the server to serve the patch whenever possible.

Figure 6: Server stress comparison for P2Cast, unicast, and IP multicast patching
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{file=figures/TRANSIT/serverstress.eps, height=1.9in, width=3in}
\end{figure}

$\bullet$ Threshold impact on the performance of P2Cast. In general the scalability of P2Cast improves as the threshold increases. Fig. 7 depicts the rejection probability of the P2Cast scheme with different thresholds. As the threshold increases, more clients can be admitted. Intuitively as the threshold increases, more clients arrive during a session and thus more clients can share the base stream. However, the requirement on the storage space placed on each client also increases. We also observe in our experiment that the rejection probability decreases faster when the threshold is smaller than 20% of the video length, and flattens out afterwards. This suggests that we should carefully choose the threshold such that the most benefits can be obtained without overburdening the client. Fig. 8 shows that the difference in the average workload imposed on the network is marginal as a function of threshold in P2Cast.

Figure 7: Threshold impact on client rejection probability
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{file=figures/TRANSIT/BFthreshold_3d.eps, height=1.9in, width=3in}
\end{figure}

Figure 8: Threshold impact on average workload posed on the network
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{file=figures/TRANSIT/BFthreshnetusage.eps, height=1.9in, width=3in}
\end{figure}

Figure 9: Threshold impact on startup delay
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{file=figures/TRANSIT/playbackdelay_3d.eps, height=1.9in, width=3in}
\end{figure}

In VoD service, the startup delay is another important metric. In the BF algorithm illustrated in Section 3, every step incurs certain delay. However we expect that the available bandwidth measurement conducted at Step 2 is the most time consuming. Therefore the startup delay in P2Cast heavily depends on the number of candidate clients that a new client has to contact before being admitted. We use the average number of candidate nodes a new client has to contact before being admitted as an estimate of the startup delay.

Fig. 9 depicts the average number of nodes needs to be contacted for different threshold in P2Cast. As either the normalized workload or the threshold value increases, the average number of nodes that need to be contacted also increases. Therefore although a larger threshold in P2Cast allows more clients to be served, it also leads to a larger joining delay.

$\bullet$ Effect of server bandwidth. We investigate the effect of server bandwidth on the performance by moving the server to one of the stub nodes in Fig. 3 (a shaded node in the stub domain). Here the server has less bandwidth than being placed in the transit domain. Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 illustrate the rejection probability and average workload placed on the network. Overall, the rejection probability of all three approaches with the server at the stub domain is higher than that with the server in the transit domain (see Fig. 4) due to the decreased server bandwidth. As to the average workload on network, P2Cast again generates the most workload. Similarly, the admitted clients in unicast tend to be closer to the server and this trend is even more evident than with server in transit domain [11].

Figure 10: Client rejection probability vs. normalized workload
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{file=figures/STUB/rejectionprob.eps, height=1.9in, width=3in}
\end{figure}

Figure 11: Network usage vs. effective normalized workload
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{file=figures/STUB/netusage.eps, height=1.9in, width=3in}
\end{figure}

Figure 12: Client rejection probability of IP multicast patching
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{file=figures/STUB/m_thresh_comp.eps, height=1.9in, width=3in}
\end{figure}

Fig. 12 depicts the rejection probability of the IP multicast-based patching with the optimal threshold and several fixed thresholds. Interestingly, we observe that the IP multicast-based patching with the optimal threshold performs badly when the normalized workload is high. The optimal threshold is derived to minimize the workload placed on the server, with the assumption that the server and the network have unlimited bandwidth to support the streaming service. As the client arrival rate increases, the optimal threshold decreases. This leads to an increasing number of sessions. Since one multicast channel is required for each session, with limited server bandwidth, the server cannot support a large number of sessions while providing patch service. This leads to the high rejection probability when the client arrival rate is high. Fig. 12 compares the IP multicast based patching using the optimal threshold with that using the fixed thresholds of 5, 10, 20, 30 percent of the video size. When the arrival rate is high, the fixed larger threshold actually helps the IP multicast patching to reduce the rejection rate. This suggests that ``optimal threshold'' may not be optimal in a real network setting.
next up previous
Next: Comparison of overlay construction Up: Performance Evaluation Previous: Notations and performance metrics
Yang Guo 2003-03-27