Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 139–154 | Cite as

On aggregate available bandwidth in many-to-one data transfer—modeling and applications

  • S. C. Hui
  • Jack Y. B. LeeEmail author


This work investigates the modeling of aggregate available bandwidth in multi-sender network applications. Unlike the well-established client–server model, where there is only one server sending the requested data, the available bandwidth of multiple senders when combined together does exhibit consistent properties and thus can be modeled and estimated. Through extensive experiments conducted in the Internet this work proposed to model the aggregate available bandwidth using a normal distribution and then illustrates its application through a hybrid download-streaming algorithm and a playback-adaptive streaming algorithm for video delivery under different bandwidth availability scenarios. This new multi-source bandwidth model opens a new way to provide probabilistic performance guarantee in best-effort networks such as the Internet, and is particularly suitable for the emerging peer-to-peer applications, where having multiple sources is the norm rather than the exception.


Multi-sender transmission Bandwidth modeling Internet measurement Multi-source streaming 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Agarwal V, Rejaie R (2005) Adaptive multi-source streaming in heterogeneous peer-to-peer networks. SPIE conference on multimedia computing and networking, San Jose, California, January 2005Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Golubchik L, Lui JCS, Muntz RR (1995) Reducing I/O demands in video-on-demand storage servers. ACM SIGMETRICS and PERFORMANCE’95, International conference on measurement and modeling of computer systems, Ottawa, Canada, May 1995Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hahn GJ, Shapiro SS (1994) Statistical models in engineering. Wiley Classics Library Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Handley M, Floyd S, Padhye J, Widmer J (2003) TCP Friendly Protocol Specification (TFRC): protocol specification. RFC 3448, January 2003Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Lam LS, Lee Jack YB, Liew SC, Wang W (2004) A transparent rate adaptation algorithm for streaming video over the internet. 18th International conference on advanced information networking and applications, Fukuoka, Japan, March 2004Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liang YQ, Tan YP (2002) Methods and needs for transcoding MPEG-4 fine granularity scalability video. IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems 2002, Scottsdale, Arizona, vol 4, pp 719–722, May 2002Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liang YJ, Farber N, Girod B (2001) Adaptive playout scheduling using time-scale modification in packet voice communications. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing 2001, Salt Lake City, Utah, vol 3, pp 1445–1448, May 2001Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morin PR (1995) The impact of self-similarity on network performance analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, Carleton University, Dec. 1995Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morris R, Dong Lin (2000) Variance of aggregated web traffic. INFOCOM 2000. Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, Tel-Aviv, Israel, vol 1, pp 360–366, March 2000Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nguyen T, Zakhor A (2002) Distributed video streaming over the internet. SPIE Conference on Multimedia Computing and Networking, San Jose, California, January 2002Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Park K, Kim G, Crovella M (1996) On the relation between file sizes, transport protocols, and self-similar network traffic. International conference on network protocols, Columbus, Ohio, USA, pp 171–180, Oct. 1996Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Park K, Kim G, Crovella M (1997) On the effect of traffic self-similarity on network performance. SPIE international conference on performance and control of network system, pp 296–310, November 1997Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paxson V (1995) Fast approximation of self-similar network traffic. Tech. Rep., Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and EECS Division, University of California, Berkeley, April 1995Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Planetlab Homepage:
  16. 16.
    Reibman AR, Jafarkhani H, Wang Y, Orchard MT, Puri R (1999) Multiple description coding for video using motion compensated prediction. International Conference on Image Processing, Kobe, Japan, vol 3, pp 837–41, October 1999Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Setton E, Liang Yi, Girod B (2003) Adaptive multiple description video streaming over multiple channels with active probing. International conference on multimedia and expo, Baltimore, Maryland, vol 1, pp I-509-12, July 2003Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tuan T, Park K (1998) Congestion control for self-similar network traffic. Department of Computer Science, Purdue University, CSD-TR 98-014, May 1998Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vetro A, Christopoulos C, Sun Huifang (2003) Video transcoding architectures and techniques: an overview. IEEE Signal Process Mag 20(2):18–29, MarchCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information EngineeringThe Chinese University of Hong KongShatin, NTHong Kong

Personalised recommendations