A QoE-perceived screen updates transmission scheme in desktop virtualization environment

  • Hongdi Zheng
  • Dong Liu
  • Junfeng WangEmail author
  • Jie Liang


As a solution for cloud computing, desktop virtualization realizes the remote execution of applications and feeds back execution results in the form of ”screen updates” through network, aiming to offer users the same experience as operating in local systems. It is challenging to achieve this goal since timeliness and reliability should be both guaranteed during the process of screen updates transmission, but the two requirements tend to be difficult to be satisfied simultaneously. Reliable transmission will induce more latency to perform reliable mechanisms, which can influence the timely delivery of screen updates. Timely transmission just provides a best-effort data delivery service, failing to react well to unfavorable network conditions. In order to cope with this problem, we propose a Partially Reliable Transmission Scheme (PRTS) for screen updates transmission in desktop virtualization environment. It tries to make trade-offs between timeliness and reliability and employs a QoE-perceived model to sense the visual quality experienced by users. Distinguished with existing transmission schemes, PRTS adjusts its sending strategy not only according to current network conditions, but also according to users’ QoE. The experimental results show that PRTS can improve the transmission efficiency of screen updates and also the visual quality in desktop virtualization environment under different network conditions.


Desktop virtualization QoE-perceived model Partially reliable Transmission scheme 



This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants 91338107 and U1836103, and in part by the Development Program of Sichuan, China under Grants 2017GZDZX0002, 18ZDYF3867 and 19ZDZX0024.


  1. 1.
    Ahmad S, Hamzaoui R, Al-Akaidi M (2010) Adaptive unicast video streaming with rateless codes and feedback. IEEE Trans Circ Syst Vid Technol 20(2):275–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bansal D, Balakrishnan H (2000) TCP-friendly congestion control for real-time streaming applications, Tech. Rep. MIT-LCS-TR-806 MIT Laboratory for Computer ScienceGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borri M, Merani ML (2004) Performance and TCP-friendliness of the SQRT congestion control protocol in lossy environments. IEEE Commun Lett 8(8):541–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cai L, Shen X, Pan J, Mark JW (2005) Performance analysis of TCP-friendly AIMD algorithms for multimedia applications. IEEE Trans Multimed 7(2):339–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carlucci G, De Cicco L, Holmer S, Mascolo S (2017) Congestion control for web real-time communication. IEEE/ACM Trans Network 25(5):2629–2642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen K, Chang H (2017) Complexity of cloud-based transcoding platform for scalable and effective video streaming services. Multimed Tools Appl 76(19):19557–19574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Claeys M, Bouten N, Vleeschauwer DD, Schepper KD, Leekwijck WV, Latr S, Turck FD (2017) Deadline-aware TCP congestion control for video streaming services. In: International conference on network and service management, pp 100–108Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eden A (2007) No-reference estimation of the coding PSNR for H.264-coded sequences. IEEE Trans Consum Electron 53(2):667–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fiedler M, Hossfeld T, Tran-Gia P (2010) A generic quantitative relationship between quality of experience and quality of service. IEEE Netw 24(2):36–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frame rate, Accessed 27 Oct (2018)
  11. 11.
    Ha S, Rhee I, Xu L (2008) Cubic: a new TCP-friendly high-speed TCP variant. Acm Sigops Oper Syst Rev 42(5):64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Independent Computing Architecture, Accessed 27 Oct (2018)
  14. 14.
    Jiang Y, Zhao B, Wang S, Sun D (2014) Research of enterprise private cloud computing platform based on openstack. Int J Grid Distrib Comput, 7Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jurgelionis A, Laulajainen JP, Hirvonen M, Wang AI (2011) An empirical study of NetEm network emulation functionalities. In: Proceedings of international conference on computer communications and networks, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li Z, Zhu S, Hong H, Li Y, Saddik AE (2017) City digital pulse: a cloud based heterogeneous data analysis platform. Multimed Tools Appl 76(8):10893–10916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liotou E, Tsolkas D, Passas N, Merakos L (2015) Quality of experience management in mobile cellular networks: key issues and design challenges. IEEE Commun Mag 53(7):145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luo Q, Wang J (2018) FRUDP: a reliable data transport protocol for aeronautical ad hoc networks. IEEE J Select Areas Commun 36(2):257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lzaro F, Liva G, Bauch G (2017) Inactivation decoding of lt and raptor codes: analysis and code design. IEEE Trans Commun 65(10):4114–4127Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mcquistin S, Perkins C, Fayed M (2016) Tcp hollywood: an unordered, time-lined, TCP for networked multimedia applications. In: IFIP NETWORKING conference, pp 422–430Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Microsoft RemoteFX, Accessed 27 Oct (2018)
  22. 22.
    Mukherjee B, Brecht T (2002) Time-lined TCP for the TCP-friendly delivery of streaming media. In: International conference on network protocols, 2000, proceedings, pp 165–176Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ngo QT, Abu LM, Xuan QP, Lee S, Huh E (2017) A remote display QoE improvement scheme for interactive applications in low network bandwidth environment. Multimed Tools Appl 76(21):22217–22241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nieh J, Yang SJ, Novik N (2003) Measuring thin-client performance using slow-motion benchmarking. Acm Trans Comput Syst 21(1):87–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nightingale J, Wang Q, Grecos C (2012) Hevstream: a framework for streaming and evaluation of high efficiency video coding (hevc) content in loss-prone networks. IEEE Trans Consum Electron 58(2):404–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oludele A, Ogu EC, Shade K., Chinecherem U (2014) On the evolution of virtualization and cloud computing: a review. J Comput Sci Appl 2(2):40–43Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    PCoIP, Accessed 27 Oct (2018)
  28. 28.
    Remote Desktop Protocol, Accessed 27 Oct (2018)
  29. 29.
    Saini M, Alam KM, Guo H, Alelaiwi A, Saddik AE (2017) InCloud: a cloud-based middleware for vehicular infotainment systems. Multimed Tools Appl 76 (9):11621–11649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sgardoni V, Nix AR (2015) Raptor code-aware link adaptation for spectrally efficient unicast video streaming over mobile broadband networks. IEEE Trans Mob Comput 14(2):401–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shen H, Lu Y, Wu F, Li S (2009) A high-performance remote computing platform. In: IEEE International conference on pervasive computing and communications, 1–6Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shen Z, Guo L, Hou B, Quan H, Zhou SS (2017) Key technique research on desktop virtualization in cloud environment. Int J Model Simul Sci Comput 8:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Soltanian A, Belqasmi F, Yangui S, Salahuddin MA, Glitho R, Elbiaze H (2018) A cloud-based architecture for multimedia conferencing service provisioning. IEEE Access 6:9792–9806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Spice for newbies, Accessed 27 Oct(2018)
  35. 35.
    Sun Ray, Accessed 27 Oct (2018)
  36. 36.
    Ubuntu linux, Accessed 27 Oct(2018)
  37. 37.
    Vankeirsbilck B, Simoens P, Wachter JD, Deboosere L (2008) Bandwidth optimization for mobile thin client computing through graphical update caching. In: Telecommunication networks and applications conference, pp 385–390Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vankeirsbilck B, Verslype D, Staelens N, Simoens P, Develder C, Dhoedt B, De Turck F, Demeester P (2012) Automatic fine-grained area detection for thin client systems. J Netw Comput Appl 35(5):1620–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikh HR, Simoncelli EP (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 13(4):600–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Xie H, Boukerche A, Loureiro AAF (2016) Mervs: a novel multichannel error recovery video streaming protocol for vehicle ad hoc networks. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 65(2):923–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hongdi Zheng
    • 1
  • Dong Liu
    • 2
  • Junfeng Wang
    • 3
    Email author
  • Jie Liang
    • 4
  1. 1.College of Computer ScienceSichuan UniversityChengduChina
  2. 2.Nuclear Power Institute of ChinaChengduChina
  3. 3.School of Aeronautics and Astronautics and College of Computer ScienceSichuan UniversityChengduChina
  4. 4.China Information Technology Security Evaluation CenterBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations