Caching video objects: Layers vs versions?

Felix Hartanto, Jussi Kangasharju, Martin Reisslein, Keith Ross

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Because Internet access rates are highly heterogeneous, many video content providers today make available different versions of the videos, with each version encoded at a different rate. Multiple video versions, however, require more server storage and may also dramatically impact cache performance in a traditional cache or in a CDN server. An alternative to versions is layered encoding, which can also provide multiple quality levels. Layered encoding requires less server storage capacity and may be more suitable for caching; but it typically increases transmission bandwidth due to encoding overhead. In this paper we compare video streaming of multiple versions with that of multiple layers in a caching environment. We examine caching and distribution strategies that use both versions and layers. We consider two cases: the request distribution for the videos is known a priori; and adaptive caching, for which the request distribution is unknown. Our analytical and simulation results indicate that mixed distribution/caching strategies provide the best overall performance.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)221-245
    Number of pages25
    JournalMultimedia Tools and Applications
    Volume31
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Nov 2006

    Fingerprint

    Caching
    Servers
    Encoding
    Server
    Video streaming
    Cache
    Video Streaming
    Internet
    Storage Capacity
    Bandwidth
    Object
    Unknown
    Alternatives
    Simulation
    Strategy

    Keywords

    • Layered video
    • Multi-version video
    • Proxy caching
    • Streaming video

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Electrical and Electronic Engineering
    • Information Systems
    • Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design
    • Software
    • Theoretical Computer Science
    • Computational Theory and Mathematics

    Cite this

    Hartanto, F., Kangasharju, J., Reisslein, M., & Ross, K. (2006). Caching video objects: Layers vs versions? Multimedia Tools and Applications, 31(2), 221-245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-006-0037-z

    Caching video objects : Layers vs versions? / Hartanto, Felix; Kangasharju, Jussi; Reisslein, Martin; Ross, Keith.

    In: Multimedia Tools and Applications, Vol. 31, No. 2, 11.2006, p. 221-245.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Hartanto, F, Kangasharju, J, Reisslein, M & Ross, K 2006, 'Caching video objects: Layers vs versions?', Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 221-245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-006-0037-z
    Hartanto, Felix ; Kangasharju, Jussi ; Reisslein, Martin ; Ross, Keith. / Caching video objects : Layers vs versions?. In: Multimedia Tools and Applications. 2006 ; Vol. 31, No. 2. pp. 221-245.
    @article{ee20da32ae36410ea93485549542b2ff,
    title = "Caching video objects: Layers vs versions?",
    abstract = "Because Internet access rates are highly heterogeneous, many video content providers today make available different versions of the videos, with each version encoded at a different rate. Multiple video versions, however, require more server storage and may also dramatically impact cache performance in a traditional cache or in a CDN server. An alternative to versions is layered encoding, which can also provide multiple quality levels. Layered encoding requires less server storage capacity and may be more suitable for caching; but it typically increases transmission bandwidth due to encoding overhead. In this paper we compare video streaming of multiple versions with that of multiple layers in a caching environment. We examine caching and distribution strategies that use both versions and layers. We consider two cases: the request distribution for the videos is known a priori; and adaptive caching, for which the request distribution is unknown. Our analytical and simulation results indicate that mixed distribution/caching strategies provide the best overall performance.",
    keywords = "Layered video, Multi-version video, Proxy caching, Streaming video",
    author = "Felix Hartanto and Jussi Kangasharju and Martin Reisslein and Keith Ross",
    year = "2006",
    month = "11",
    doi = "10.1007/s11042-006-0037-z",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "31",
    pages = "221--245",
    journal = "Multimedia Tools and Applications",
    issn = "1380-7501",
    publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
    number = "2",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Caching video objects

    T2 - Layers vs versions?

    AU - Hartanto, Felix

    AU - Kangasharju, Jussi

    AU - Reisslein, Martin

    AU - Ross, Keith

    PY - 2006/11

    Y1 - 2006/11

    N2 - Because Internet access rates are highly heterogeneous, many video content providers today make available different versions of the videos, with each version encoded at a different rate. Multiple video versions, however, require more server storage and may also dramatically impact cache performance in a traditional cache or in a CDN server. An alternative to versions is layered encoding, which can also provide multiple quality levels. Layered encoding requires less server storage capacity and may be more suitable for caching; but it typically increases transmission bandwidth due to encoding overhead. In this paper we compare video streaming of multiple versions with that of multiple layers in a caching environment. We examine caching and distribution strategies that use both versions and layers. We consider two cases: the request distribution for the videos is known a priori; and adaptive caching, for which the request distribution is unknown. Our analytical and simulation results indicate that mixed distribution/caching strategies provide the best overall performance.

    AB - Because Internet access rates are highly heterogeneous, many video content providers today make available different versions of the videos, with each version encoded at a different rate. Multiple video versions, however, require more server storage and may also dramatically impact cache performance in a traditional cache or in a CDN server. An alternative to versions is layered encoding, which can also provide multiple quality levels. Layered encoding requires less server storage capacity and may be more suitable for caching; but it typically increases transmission bandwidth due to encoding overhead. In this paper we compare video streaming of multiple versions with that of multiple layers in a caching environment. We examine caching and distribution strategies that use both versions and layers. We consider two cases: the request distribution for the videos is known a priori; and adaptive caching, for which the request distribution is unknown. Our analytical and simulation results indicate that mixed distribution/caching strategies provide the best overall performance.

    KW - Layered video

    KW - Multi-version video

    KW - Proxy caching

    KW - Streaming video

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33750903154&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33750903154&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1007/s11042-006-0037-z

    DO - 10.1007/s11042-006-0037-z

    M3 - Article

    AN - SCOPUS:33750903154

    VL - 31

    SP - 221

    EP - 245

    JO - Multimedia Tools and Applications

    JF - Multimedia Tools and Applications

    SN - 1380-7501

    IS - 2

    ER -