Performance Analysis of Home Streaming Video Using Orb

1. Performance Analysis of Home Streaming Video Using Orb Presented By: Rabin Karki 27 May, 2010 Rabin Karki, Thangam Seenivasan, Mark Claypool and Robert Kinicki Worcester Polytechnic Institute

2. Introduction • Video streaming largest fraction of Web-based traffic to homes [cite] • New trend - users streaming video from home to Internet • Needs: • Understand how available bandwidth determined • Measure bandwidth use of new systems • Ascertain video quality

3. Introduction • Orb – free video streaming system from home to the Internet • Features • MyCast service • Instant access to photos, music, videos, television, and other digital content on PC • Access anytime and from any Internet-connected device • Launched in 2005, now 7+ million users

4. Overview • Introduction • Goals • Experiments • Results • Conclusions

5. Goals • Ascertain how Orb determines bandwidth available for streaming • Measure Orb network traffic under different bandwidth constraints • Investigate video performance at streaming client • Understand resource usage at streaming host

6. Overview • Introduction • Goals • Experiments • Results • Conclusions

7. Orb – Streaming Modes

8. Experiments – Setup Internet Host and Client PC • Windows XP running Orb Router • Linux with Netem Network • Direct streaming Tools • Wireshark and MediaTracker Orb Server Uplink Bandwidth estimation Downlink Bandwidth estimation WPI LAN Direct streaming Direct streaming Router Client PC Host PC

9. Experiments – Videos Used • Source: • Documentary, High def, .mov video, 150 seconds • Encode: • Windows Streaming Media, low quality320x240, 768 kbps, 25 fps • Windows Streaming Media, high quality1280x720, 1546 kbps, 25 fps • Flash Video320x214, 320 kbps

10. Overview • Introduction • Goals • Experiments • Results • Conclusions

11. Low Quality Video: Frame Rate • Lower frame rate suggests coarse scaling • 250 ends later

12. Low Quality Video: Bit rate • Different encoding levels suggest quality scaling. • Extremely low bitrate at 250 kbps

13. Low Quality Video: Bandwidth • Video streamed just below available b/w (except 250 kbps)

14. High Quality Video: Frame rate • Frame rates similar to low quality video.

15. High Quality Video: Bit rate • Bitrates different than low quality • When buffer progress is 100% for some time, bit rate is doubled. • If buffer progress doesn’t improve, bit rate is reduced.

16. High Quality Video: Bandwidth • Bandwidth used more closely follows the bandwidth settings than do the encoded bitrates.

17. Host Load

18. Overview • Introduction • Goals • Experiments • Results • Conclusions

19. Conclusions • Bit rate adapts to capacity constraints using TCP • Temporal and quality scaling • Temporal scaling coarse • Quality scaling smoother for low-quality video • Transcoding in real-time • Resource intensive for streaming host

20. Future work • Other devices • Indirect streaming • Other network settings

21. Thank you! Questions?