H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina, "Streaming live media over peer-to-peer network," Technical Report, Stanford University, 2001.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....and therefore scale to a large number of peers. Narada [9] on the other hand, targets small scale multi sender multi receiver applications. Narada maintains and optimizes a mesh that interconnects peers. The optimized mesh yields good performance but it imposes maintenance overhead. SpreadIt [13] constructs a distribution tree rooted at the sender for a live media streaming session. A new receiver joins by traversing the tree starting at the root till it reaches a node with sufficient remaining capacity. CoopNet [22] supports both live and on demand streaming. It employs ....

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina. Streaming live media over peer-to-peer network. Technical report, Stanford University, 2001.

....fast, and the maintenance overhead for the cluster structures is small others s: selver vice head head Super cluster head subordinate Fig. 1. Administrative organization of peers (left) Relationships among clusters and peers (right) and independent of N. Several previous solutions [3] [4], 5] to our problem can provide a subset of the above fea tures, but none can achieve all. The promising performance of Zigzag is substantiated by both theoretical and simulation analyses which also include a comparison with a recent method [3] The results indicate that Zigzag is indeed a ....

....and the existing P2P techniques below. 15] introduced a scheme for video on demand services, which seems to be the first P2P pro posal for streaming applications. However, it neither mentions the stability of the system under network dynamics nor analyzes the protocol overheads involved. [4] proposed SpreadIt which builds a single distribution tree of the peers. A new receiver joins by traversing the tree nodes downward from the source until finding one with unsaturated bandwidth. Spreadit has to get the source involved whenever a failure occurs, thus vulnerable to disruptions due to ....

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina, "Streaming live media over a peer-to-peer network," in Work at CS-Stanford. Submitted for publication, 2002.

....a portion of the streaming bandwidth. In addition, different from the client server paradigm [2] the sender set members may change dynamically, due to their unpredictable online offline status changes. Recently, P2P streaming has been studied from other angles. Narada [3] and PeerCast [4] are two proposed architectures for synchronous broadcast of live media to multiple peers. They focus on dynamic construction of a multicast tree which connects peers requesting the live media. However, they do not consider the limited contribution of bandwidth from individual peers. CoopNet [5] ....

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa and H. Garcia-Molina, "Streaming Live Media over a Peer-to-Peer Network", Stanford Database Group Technical Report (2001-20), Aug. 2001.

....these seeding peers (in case of a commercial service) is greatly reduced. 6. Related Work Significant research effort has addressed the problem of efficiently streaming multimedia, both live and on demand, over the best effort Internet. Directly related to our work are systems like SpreadIt [2] for streaming live media and CoopNet [10] 9] for both live and on demand streaming. Both systems build distribution trees using application layer multicast and, like ours, they rely on cooperating peers. Multicast (network or application layer) is the basis for several other media delivery ....

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina. Streaming live media over peer-to-peer network. Technical report, Stanford University, 2001.

....If the recipient is the cluster head, X also sends a list L = X 1 , d 1 ] X 2 , d 2 ] where [X i , d i ] represents that X is currently forwarding the content to d i peers in the foreign cluster whose head is X i . e.g. in Fig. 2, at layer 1, peer 5 needs to send a list [S, 3] [6, 3] to the head S. If the recipient is the parent, X instead sends the following information: A Boolean flag Reachable(X) true iff there exists a path in the multicast tree from X to a layer 0 peer. e.g. in Fig. 2, Reachable(7) false,Reachable(4 ) true. A Boolean flag Addable(X) true ....

....extra servers. Since we employ this approach, we discuss the differences between ZIGZAG and the existing P2P techniques below. 14] introduced the first P2P technique for streaming applications. This early design, however, did not address the stability of the system under network dynamics. [6] proposed SpreadIt which builds a single distribution tree of the peers. A new receiver joins by traversing the tree nodes downward from the source until finding one with unsaturated bandwidth. Spreadit has to get the source involved whenever a failure occurs, thus vulnerable to disruptions due to ....

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina, "Streaming live media over a peer-to-peer network," in Submitted for publication, 2002.

....work is that we focus on the distruption and packet loss caused by node arrivals and departures, which is likely to be signi cant in a highly dynamic environment. Using traces from the September 11 ash crowd, we are able to evaluate this issue in a realistic setting. Systems such as SpreadIt [5], Allcast [23] and vTrails [24] are perhaps closest in spirit to our work. Like CoopNet, they attempt to deliver streaming content using a peer to peer approach. SpreadIt di ers from CoopNet is a couple of ways. First, it uses only a single distribution tree and hence is vulnerable to disruptions ....

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina. \Streaming Live Media over a Peer-to-Peer Network", Technical Report, Stanford University, August 2001. http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/2001-31

....of SplitStream will be presented in a forthcoming full paper. 5 Related work Many application level multicast systems have been proposed recently, e.g. 10, 16, 20, 23, 8, 3] All are based on a single multicast tree. Several systems use application level multicast for streaming media [16, 12, 19]. SpreadIt [12] utilizes the participants, as SplitStream does, but creates a single multicast tree. However, unlike SpreadIt, SplitStream distributes the forwarding load over all participants using multiple multicast trees, thereby reducing the bandwidth demands on individual peers and increasing ....

....will be presented in a forthcoming full paper. 5 Related work Many application level multicast systems have been proposed recently, e.g. 10, 16, 20, 23, 8, 3] All are based on a single multicast tree. Several systems use application level multicast for streaming media [16, 12, 19] SpreadIt [12] utilizes the participants, as SplitStream does, but creates a single multicast tree. However, unlike SpreadIt, SplitStream distributes the forwarding load over all participants using multiple multicast trees, thereby reducing the bandwidth demands on individual peers and increasing robustness. ....

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina. Streaming live media over a peer-to-peer network, Apr. 2001. Stanford University, CA, USA.

....in the worst case, and only O( on the average. 5. Our technique is lightweight in terms of overheads for processing a new receiver join, and for keeping the peers not to violate the C rules and the cluster size bounding restrictions. In comparison, no previous solution [14] 15] 2] [7], 8] 11] to our problem can provide all the above features. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the protocol details together with theoretical analyses that prove the correctness of the proposed scheme. Section 3 reports the L H 1 L H 2 L H 3 4 3 5 6 7 ....

....dedicated servers mentioned above. A multicast tree involves only the source and the receivers, thus avoiding the complexity and cost of deploying and maintaining extra servers. Since we employ this approach, we discuss the differences between our technique and the existing P2P techniques below. [7] proposed SpreadIt which builds a single distribution tree of the peers. A new receiver joins by traversing the tree nodes downward from the source until finding one with unsaturated bandwidth. Spreadit has to get the source involved whenever a failure occurs, thus vulnerable to disruptions due to ....

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina. Streaming live media over a peer-to-peer network. In Work at CS-Stanford. Submitted for publication, 2002.

....receiver. Especially, failure recovery can be done regionally with only impact on a constant number of existing receivers and no burden on the source. This is an important benefit because the source is usually overloaded by huge requests from the network. In comparison, no previous solution [5] [6], 7] 8] to our problem can provide all the above features. Besides theoretical analyses that prove the correctness of our scheme, a simulation based study was carried out to evaluate its performance under various scenarios. In this study, we also compared ZIGZAG to SMOP [5] a recent scheme ....

....degree. If the recipient is the cluster head, also sends a list [ 4 B , B ] 4 ] where [ 4 E , represents that is currently forwarding the content E peers in the sibling cluster whose head is 4 E . e.g. in Fig. 2, at layer 1, peer 5 needs to send a list [S, 3] [6, 3] to the head . If the recipient is the parent, 4 instead sends the following information: flagFHG0IKJML ION ) true iff there exists a path in the multicast tree from to a layer 0 peer. e.g. in Fig. 2,FHG0IKJMLQIRN ) false,FHGTIRJULQIRN 2 V ) true. flagWXCYCYION ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina, "Streaming live media over a peer-to-peer network," in Work at CS-Stanford. Submitted for publication, 2002.

....system instead of a peerto peer system. C star [1] is a commercial multi source streaming service. Similar to our work, the capacity of the C star distribution network grows over time. However, C star does not differentiate between suppliers of different out bound bandwidth capability. In [5], an architecture called SpreadIt is proposed for streaming live media over a peer to peer network. It focuses on the dynamic construction of a multicast tree among peers requesting a live media. However, SpreadIt is not intended for the asynchronous streaming of stored media data. Also it does ....

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina. Streaming Live Media over a Peer-to-Peer Network. Stanford Database Group Technical Report (2001-30), Aug. 2001.

....bandwidth requirements as compared to network layer multicast, are important performance measures for overlay network topologies for application layer multicast. Most overlay topologies for application layer multicast fall into three groups. Topologies in the first group consist of a single tree [8, 9, 11, 13, 19, 22]. A drawback of using a single tree is that the failure of a single application may cause a partition of the overlay topology. The second group of topologies are mesh graphs, where data is transmitted along spanning trees which are embedded in the mesh graph [3, 4] A drawback of mesh graphs is ....

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina. Streaming live media over a peer-to-peer network. Technical Report 2001-30, Stanford University (Computer Science Dept.), June 2001.

....work is that we focus on the distruption and packet loss caused by node arrivals and departures, which is likely to be signi cant in a highly dynamic environment. Using traces from the September 11 ash crowd, we are able to evaluate this issue in a realistic setting. Systems such as SpreadIt [5], Allcast [31] and vTrails [33] are perhaps closest in spirit to our work. Like CoopNet, they attempt to deliver streaming content using a peer to peer approach. SpreadIt di ers from CoopNet is a couple of ways. First, it uses only a single distribution tree and hence is vulnerable to disruptions ....

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina. \Streaming Live Media over a Peer-to-Peer Network", Technical Report, Stanford University, August 2001. http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/2001-31

No context found.

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina, "Streaming live media over peer-to-peer network," Technical Report, Stanford University, 2001.

No context found.

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina. "Streaming Live Media over a Peer-to-Peer Network", Technical Report, Stanford University, August 2001. http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/2001-31

No context found.

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina, "Streaming live media over a peer-to-peer network," Stanford University, Tech. Rep., August 2001.

No context found.

Deshpande, H., Bawa, M., Garcia-Molina, H.: Streaming live media over a peer-to-peer network. CSD, Stanford University (2001)

No context found.

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina. Streaming live media over peer-to-peer network. Technical report, Stanford University, 2001.

No context found.

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina. Streaming live media over a peer-to-peer network. Technical Report 2001-31, Stanford University, 2001.

No context found.

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina, "Streaming live media over a peer-to-peer network," 2001, technical Report CS-2001-31, CS Dept. Stanford University.

No context found.

H. Deshpande and M. Bawa and H. Garcia-Molina. Streaming Live Media over a Peer-to-Peer Network. Technical Report 2001-31, Stanford University, 2001.

No context found.

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina. "Streaming Live Media over a Peer-to-Peer Network", Technical Report, Stanford University, August 2001. http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/2001-31

No context found.

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina. Streaming live media over peer-to-peer network. Technical report, Stanford University, 2001.

No context found.

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina. Streaming live media over peer-to-peer network. Technical report, Stanford University, 2001.

No context found.

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina. Streaming Live Media over a Peer-to-Peer Network. Technical report, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Abril 2001.

No context found.

H. Deshpande, M. Bawa, and H. Garcia-Molina. Streaming live media over a peer-to-peer network. Technical Report 2001-30, Stanford University (Computer Science Dept.), August 2001.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC