Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

Dissecting the performance of YouTube video streaming in mobile networks

Published: 14 May 2020 Publication History

Summary

Video streaming applications constitute a significant portion of the Internet traffic today, with mobile accounting for more than half of the online video views. The high share of video in the current Internet traffic mix has prompted many studies that examine video streaming through measurements. However, streaming performance depends on many different factors at different layers of the TCP/IP stack. For example, browser selection at the application layer or the choice of protocol in transport layer can have significant impact on the video performance. Furthermore, video performance heavily depends on the underlying network conditions (eg, network and link layers). For mobile networks, the conditions vary significantly, since each operator has a different deployment strategy and configuration. In this paper, we focus on YouTube and carry out a comprehensive study investigating the influence of different factors on streaming performance. Leveraging the Measuring Mobile Broadband Networks in Europe (MONROE) test bed that enables experimentation with 13 different network configurations in four countries, we collect more than 1800 measurement samples in operational mobile networks. With this campaign, our goal is to quantify the impact of parameters from different layers on YouTube's streaming quality of experience (QoE). More specifically, we analyze the role of the browser (eg, Firefox and Chrome), the impact of transport protocol (eg, TCP or QUIC), the influence of network bandwidth, and signal coverage on streaming QoE. Our analysis reveals that all these parameters need to be taken into account jointly for network management practices, in order to ensure a high end‐user experience.

Graphical Abstract

Video streaming constitutes a significant portion of the Internet traffic, with mobile views accounting for more than half overall. Streaming performance depends on many factors at different layers of the TCP/IP stack. In the paper “Dissecting the Performance of YouTube Video Streaming in Mobile Networks,” authors Anika Schwind, Cise Midoglu, Özgü Alay, Carsten Griwodz, and Florian Wamser carry out a study of YouTube streaming in mobile broadband using the MONROE platform and investigate the impact of different influence factors on overall QoE.

References

[1]
Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update. San Jose, CA, USA; 2017.
[2]
internetlivestats.com. 74,570 YouTube videos viewed in 1 second; July 2018.
[3]
Sandvine . 2016 Global Internet Phenomena: Latin America & North America. Tech. rep; June 2016.
[4]
Wamser F, Pries R, Staehle D, Heck K, Tran‐Gia P. Traffic characterization of a residential wireless internet access. Telecommun Syst. 2011;48(1‐2):5‐17.
[5]
Seufert M, Egger S, Slanina M, Zinner T, Hoßfeld T, Tran‐Gia P. A survey on quality of experience of HTTP adaptive streaming. IEEE Commun Surv Tutorials. 2015;17(1).
[6]
Seufert M, Hoßfeld T, Sieber C. Impact of intermediate layer on quality of experience of HTTP adaptive streaming. In: 11th International Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM); 2015; Barcelona, Spain:256‐260.
[7]
Adhikari VK, Jain S, Zhang Z‐L. YouTube traffic dynamics and its interplay with a tier‐1 ISP: an ISP perspective. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement. ACM; 2010:431‐443.
[8]
Finamore A, Mellia M, Munafò MM, Torres R, Rao SG. YouTube everywhere: impact of device and infrastructure synergies on user experience. In: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '11). Toronto, Ontario, Canada:ACM; 2011:345‐360.
[9]
Plissonneau L, Biersack E, Juluri P. Analyzing the impact of YouTube delivery policies on user experience. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Teletraffic Congress. International Teletraffic Congress; 2012; Krakow, Poland:28.
[10]
Casas P, Seufert M, Wamser F, Gardlo B, Sackl A, Schatz R. Next to you: monitoring quality of experience in cellular networks from the end‐devices. IEEE Trans Netw Serv Manag. 2016;13(2):181‐196.
[11]
Mok RK, Bajpai V, Dhamdhere A, Claffy K. Revealing the load‐balancing behavior of YouTube traffic on interdomain links. In: International Conference on Passive and Active Network Measurement. Springer; 2018; Berlin‐Dahlem:228‐240.
[12]
Orsolic I, Pevec D, Suznjevic M, Skorin‐Kapov L. A machine learning approach to classifying YouTube QoE based on encrypted network traffic. Multimed Tools Appl. 2017;76(21):22267‐22301.
[13]
Wamser F, Casas P, Seufert M, Moldovan C, Tran‐Gia P, Hoßfeld T. Modeling the YouTube stack: from packets to quality of experience. Comput Netw. 2016;109:211‐224.
[14]
Wamser F, Seufert M, Casas P, Irmer R, Tran‐Gia P, Schatz R. YoMoApp: a tool for analyzing QoE of YouTube HTTP adaptive streaming in mobile networks. In: European Conference on Networks and Communications (EuCNC); 2015; Paris, France.
[15]
Alay Ö, Lutu A, Garcia R, et al. Measuring and assessing mobile broadband networks with MONROE. In: IEEE 17th International Symposium on A World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM); 2016; Coimbra, Portugal.
[16]
Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH). Standard. ISO/IEC; May 2014.
[17]
Pantos R, May W. HTTP live streaming. Tech. rep,  IETF; Sept. 2011.
[18]
Lederer S. Why YouTube & Netflix use MPEG‐DASH in HTML5. Tech. rep.; Feb. 2015.
[19]
Hoßfeld T, Seufert M, Hirth M, Zinner T, Tran‐Gia P, Schatz R. Quantification of YouTube QoE via crowdsourcing. In: 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia. ISM; 2011; Dana Point CA, USA.
[20]
Dye M, McDonald R, Rufi A. Network Fundamentals, CCNA Exploration Companion Guide. Indianapolis, Indiana, United States: Cisco Press; 2007.
[21]
Midoglu C, Wimmer L, Lutu A, Alay Ö, Griwodz C. MONROE‐Nettest: a configurable tool for dissecting speed measurements in mobile broadband networks. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS); 2017; Honolulu, HI, USA.
[24]
Schwind A, Midoglu C, Alay Ö, Griwodz C, Wamser F. VideoMon dataset. https://zenodo.org/record/1415521; 2018.
[25]
Alay Ö, Lutu A, Peón‐Quirós M, et al. Experience: an open platform for experimentation with commercial mobile broadband networks. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking. ACM; 2017; Snowbird, Utah, USA:70‐78.
[26]
Peón‐Quirós M, Mancuso V, Comite V, et al. Results from running an experiment as a service platform for mobile networks. In: Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Wireless Network Testbeds, Experimental evaluation & Characterization. Snowbird, UT, USA: ACM; 2017:9‐16.
[28]
Midoglu C, Kousias K, Griwodz C, Alay Ö. Evaluation of DASH rate adaptation algorithms in operational mobile networks. Poster at TMA PhD School; 2017.
[29]
Midoglu C, Moulay M, Mancuso V, Alay Ö, Lutu A, Griwodz C. Open video datasets over operational mobile networks with MONROE. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys '18); 2018; Amsterdam, Netherlands.
[30]
Moulay M, Mancuso. V. Experimental performance evaluation of WebRTC video services over mobile networks. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS); 2018; Honolulu, HI, USA.
[31]
Midoglu C, Schwind A, Wamser F. VideoMon container. https://github.com/VideoMon/VideoMon-IJNM2018; 2018.
[32]
Khatouni AS, Mellia M, Marsan MA, et al. Speedtest‐like measurements in 3G/4G networks: the MONROE experience. In: 29th International Teletraffic Congress (ITC 29), Vol. 1. IEEE; 2017:169‐177.
[33]
Esteban J, Benno SA, Beck A, Guo Y, Hilt V, Rimac I. Interactions between HTTP adaptive streaming and TCP. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Workshop on Network and Operating System Support for Digital Audio and Video. ACM; 2012; Toronto, Ontario, Canada:21‐26.
[35]
Zink M, Künzel O, Schmitt J, Steinmetz R. Subjective impression of variations in layer encoded videos. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Quality of Service (IWQoS'03), 2003, Berkeley, CA, USA; 2003:137‐154.
[36]
Mok RK, Chan EW, Luo X, Chang RK. Inferring the QoE of HTTP video streaming from user‐viewing activities. In: Proceedings of the First ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Measurements up the Stack (W‐MUST '11. New York. ACM Press; 2011; New York, USA:31.
[37]
Krishnan SS, Sitaraman RK. Video stream quality impacts viewer behavior: inferring causality using quasi‐experimental designs. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Internet Measurement Conference. IMC '12. ACM; 2012; New York, NY, USA:211‐224.
[38]
Casas P, Schatz R, Wamser F, Seufert M, Irmer R. Exploring QoE in cellular networks: how much bandwidth do you need for popular smartphone apps? In: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on All Things Cellular: Operations, Applications and Challenges (AllThingsCellular '15); 2015; London, UK.
[39]
Hoßfeld T, Seufert M, Sieber C, Zinner T, Tran‐Gia P. Identifying QoE optimal adaptation of HTTP adaptive streaming based on subjective studies. Comput Netw. 2015;81:320‐332.
[40]
Juluri P, Tamarapalli V, Medhi D. Measurement of quality of experience of video‐on‐demand services: a survey. IEEE Commun Surv Tutorials; 18(1):401‐418.
[41]
J.343.6: hybrid‐FR objective perceptual video quality measurement for HDTV and multimedia IP‐based video services in the presence of a full reference signal and non‐encrypted bitstream data; 2014.
[42]
Aggarwal V, Halepovic E, Pang J, Venkataraman S, Yan H. Prometheus: Toward quality‐of‐experience estimation for mobile apps from passive network measurements. In: Proceedings of the 15thWorkshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications (HotMobile '14); 2014; United States.
[43]
Casas P, D'Alconzo A, Wamser F, et al. Predicting QoE in cellular networks using machine learning and in‐smartphone measurements. In: Ninth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX); 2017; Erfurt, Germany.
[44]
Orsolic I, Pevec D, Suznjevic M, Skorin‐Kapov L. YouTube QoE estimation based on the analysis of encrypted network traffic using machine learning. In: 5th IEEE International Workshop on Quality of Experience for Multimedia Communications (QoEMC); 2016; Washington, DC, USA.
[45]
Haddad M, Altman E, El‐Azouzi R, et al. A Survey on YouTube Streaming Service. Proceedings of the 5th International ICST Conference on Performance Evaluation Methodologies and Tools. ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering); 2011:300‐305.
[46]
Karagkioules T, Concolato C, Tsilimantos D, Valentin S. A comparative case study of HTTP adaptive streaming algorithms in mobile networks. In: Proceedings of the 27th Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video. Taipei, Taiwan:ACM; 2017:1‐6.
[47]
Xu S, Sen S, Mao ZM, Jia Y. Dissecting VOD services for cellular: performance, root causes and best practices. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '17); 2017:220‐234; London, UK.
[48]
Rao A, Legout A, Lim Y‐S, Towsley D, Barakat C, Dabbous W. Network characteristics of video streaming traffic. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies. ACM; 2011:25.
[49]
Schwind A, Seufert M, Alay Ö, Casas P, Tran‐Gia P, Wamser F. Concept and implementation of video QoE measurements in a mobile broadband testbed. In: 2017 Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis Conference (TMA). Dublin, Ireland; 2017.
[50]
Seufert M, Casas P, Wamser F, Wehner N, Schatz R, Tran‐Gia P. Application‐layer monitoring of QoE parameters for mobile YouTube video streaming in the field. In: IEEE Sixth International Conference on Communications and Electronics (ICCE); 2016; Ha Long, Vietnam.
[51]
Staehle B, Hirth M, Pries R, Wamser F, Staehle D. YoMo: a YouTube application comfort monitoring tool. In: New Dimensions in the Assessment and Support of Quality of Experience for Multimedia Applications (QoEMCS); 2010; Tampere, Finland.
[52]
Wamser F, Seufert M, Casas P, Irmer R, Tran‐Gia P, Schatz R. Poster: understanding YouTube QoE in cellular networks with YoMoApp: a QoE monitoring tool for YouTube mobile. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom '15); 2015; Paris, France.
[53]
Nam H, Kim K, Schulzrinne H, Calin D. YouSlow: a performance analysis tool for adaptive bitrate video streaming. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on SIGCOMM; 2014; Chicago, IL, USA.
[54]
Casas P, Seufert M, Schatz R. YOUQMON: a system for on‐line monitoring of YouTube QoE in operational 3G networks. In: ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 41; 2013; Vienna, Austria.
[55]
Chen QA, Luo H, Rosen S, et al. QoE Doctor: diagnosing mobile app QoE with automated UI control and cross‐layer analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Internet Measurement Conference (IMC'14); 2014; Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Evaluating QUIC Performance Over Web, Cloud Storage, and Video WorkloadsIEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management10.1109/TNSM.2021.313456219:2(1366-1381)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2022
  • (2021)360NorVicProceedings of the 31st ACM Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video10.1145/3458306.3460998(58-65)Online publication date: 16-Jul-2021

Index Terms

  1. Dissecting the performance of YouTube video streaming in mobile networks
              Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

              Information & Contributors

              Information

              Published In

              cover image International Journal of Network Management
              International Journal of Network Management  Volume 30, Issue 3
              May/June 2020
              142 pages
              EISSN:1099-1190
              DOI:10.1002/nem.v30.3
              Issue’s Table of Contents

              Publisher

              John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

              United States

              Publication History

              Published: 14 May 2020

              Qualifiers

              • Research-article

              Contributors

              Other Metrics

              Bibliometrics & Citations

              Bibliometrics

              Article Metrics

              • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
              • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
              Reflects downloads up to 26 Nov 2024

              Other Metrics

              Citations

              Cited By

              View all
              • (2022)Evaluating QUIC Performance Over Web, Cloud Storage, and Video WorkloadsIEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management10.1109/TNSM.2021.313456219:2(1366-1381)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2022
              • (2021)360NorVicProceedings of the 31st ACM Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video10.1145/3458306.3460998(58-65)Online publication date: 16-Jul-2021

              View Options

              View options

              Login options

              Media

              Figures

              Other

              Tables

              Share

              Share

              Share this Publication link

              Share on social media