Priority-based scheduling scheme for live video streaming in peer-to-peer network

  • Kunwar Pal
  • Mahesh Chandra Govil
  • Mushtaq Ahmed


The P2P networks play a crucial role in communication and data transfer. During recent years the importance of P2P network is increasing due to its scalability and an easy cost-efficient model. From the last few years, a P2P network has also been playing a significant role in real-time data transmission. The features offered by P2P network for video on demand/ live video streaming are getting popular day by day. The key factors which affect the performance of the P2P network are Scheduling and Overlay. Scheduling schemes like push-based, pull-based scheduling schemes that can be further classified into FCFS, rarity based and deadline based scheduling schemes are not sufficient to fulfill the demand of P2P network. So in this paper, we have defined two new scheduling schemes which overcome the shortcomings of the existing schemes. These are priority based scheduling schemes which calculate the priority by combining the different factors which directly affect the performance of a network. This approach is a combination of priority based chunk selection and bandwidth aware peer selection mechanism, which improves the delay between the peers. A comparative analysis of the new priority-based scheduling scheme is done with previous approaches. The simulation results are shown in this paper verify the approach and depict that performance of network and quality of video receiver is improved with the use of priority based scheduling scheme. Performance analysis of scheduling schemes is evaluated using parameters like startup delay, end-to-end delay, playback delay, and frame redundancy, and for the quality of video the distortion, frame loss ratio of video parameter is used.


Peer-to-peer network Live video streaming Scheduling schemes Resource utilization 


  1. 1.
    Alexa (2017) [online]. available: [accessed: 10-jan-2017]
  2. 2.
    Awiphan S, Su Z, Katto J (2010) Tomo: A two-layer mesh/tree structure for live streaming in P2P overlay network, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baumgart I, Baumgart I, Heep B, Heep B, Krause S, Krause S (2007) Oversim: A Flexible Overlay Network Simulation Framework, 2007 IEEE global internet symposium, pp 79–84Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bideh MK, Akbari B, Sheshjavani AG (2016) Adaptive content-and-deadline aware chunk scheduling in mesh-based P2P video streaming. Peer-to-Peer Netw Appl 9(2):436–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bouten N, Schmidt RDO, Famaey J, Latré S, Pras A, De Turck F (2015) Qoe-driven in-network optimization for Adaptive Video Streaming based on packet sampling measurements. Comput Netw 81:96–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Byers J, Considine J, Mitzenmacher M, Rost S (2004) Informed content delivery across adaptive overlay networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 12(5):767–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Byun HBH, Lee MLM (2009) Hypo: A peer-to-peer based hybrid overlay structure. In: 2009 11th international conference on advanced communication technology, vol 1, pp 840–844Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Canada BC (2007) mtreebone: A Hybrid Tree / Mesh Overlay for Application-Layer Live Video. In: 27th international conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 2007. ICDCS’07, pp 49Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chang Y, Jia X (2014) Rate-adaptive broadcast routing and scheduling for video streaming in wireless mesh networks. In: 23rd international conference on computer communication and networks (ICCCN), pp 1–8Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chang C, Chou C, Chen M (2011) Towards quality-oriented scheduling for live swarm-based p2p streaming. In: Visual communications and image processing (vcip), pp 1–4Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Efthymiopoulou M, Efthymiopoulos N, Christakidis A, Athanasopoulos N, Denazis S, Koufopavlou O (2016) Scalable playback rate control in P2P live streaming systems. Peer-to-Peer Netw Appl 9(6):1162–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fesci-Sayit M, Tunali ET, Tekalp AM (2009) Bandwidth-aware multiple multicast tree formation for P2P scalable video streaming using hierarchical clusters. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, ICIP ‘09, pp 945–948Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Govil PK, Ahmed Mushtaq MC (2015) A new hybrid approach for overlay construction in p2p live streaming. In: ICACCI, pp 431–437Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hammami C, Jemili I, Gazdar A, Belghith A, Mosbah M (2014) Hybrid live P2P streaming protocol. Procedia Comput Sci 32:158–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hao P (2016) Adaptive Packet Scheduling for Scalable Video Streaming with Network Coding, pp 0-5Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hei X, Liang C, Liang J, Liu Y, Ross KW (2007) A measurement study of a large-scale P2P IPTV system. IEEE Trans Multimed 9(8):1672–1687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hobfeld T, Oechsner S, Lehrieder F, Bergner C, Tran Gia P (2008) Investigation of chunk selection strategies in peer-assisted video-on-demand systemsGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huang NF, Chu YM, Chen YR (2010) Design of a p2p live multimedia streaming system with hybrid push and pull mechanisms. 2010 WRI Int Conf Commun Mob Comput C 1:541–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang S, Izquierdo E, Hao P (2015) A push scheduling algorithm with network coding for peer-to-peer live streaming. In: 6th latin-american conference on networked and electronic media (lacnem 2015), pp 12Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang S, Izquierdo E, Hao P (2016) Bandwidth-efficient packet scheduling for live streaming with network coding. IEEE Trans Multimed 18(4):752–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    IPTV (2017) [online]. available: [accessed: 11-jan-2017]
  22. 22.
    Jannotti J, Gifford DK, Johnson KL, Kaashoek MF, O‘Toole JW Jr (2000) Overcast: reliable multicasting with on overlay network. In: Osdi’00 proceedings of the 4th conference on symposium on operating system design & implementation, pp 14Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kao H, Lee C, Kao Y, Wu P (2016) I2CC: Interleaving two-level cache with network coding in peer-to-peer VoD system. J Netw Comput Appl 60:180–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karayer E, Sayit M (2015) A path selection approach with genetic algorithm for P2P video streaming systems. Multimed Tools Appl 75(23):16039–16057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Keong CY, Hoong PK, Ting CY (2011) Efficient hybrid push-pull based P2P media streaming system. in: Proceedings of the international conference on parallel and distributed systems - ICPADS, pp 735–740Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim J, Caire G, Molisch AF (2016) Quality-aware Streaming and Scheduling for Device-to-Device Video Delivery. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 24(4):2319–2331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li B et al (2007) An empirical study of the coolstreaming plus system. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 25(9):1627–1639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li BLB, Yin HYH (2007) Peer-to-peer live video streaming on the internet: issues, existing approaches, and challenges [Peer-to-Peer Multimedia Streaming]. IEEE Commun Mag 45(6):94–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li Z, Hei X, Tsang D (2008) Towards low-redundancy push-pull p2p live streaming. In: Proceedings of the 5th international ICST conference on heterogeneous networking for quality, reliability, security and robustness. ICST (institute for computer sciences, social-informatics and telecommunications engineering), pp 13Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu Y, Guo Y, Liang C (2008) A survey on peer-to-peer video streaming systems. Peer-to-Peer Netw Appl 1(1):18–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liu Y, Zhang X, Cui J, Wu C, Aghajan H, Zha H (2010) Visual Analysis of Child-Adult Interactive Behaviors in Video Sequences, pp 26–33Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liu Y, Nie L, Han L, Zhang L, Rosenblum DS (2012) Action2activity: Recognizing complex activities from sensor dataGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liu N, Yang J, Cui H, Zheng G, Chen H (2013) Efficient push-based packet scheduling for Peer-to-Peer live streaming. Clust Comput 16(4):767–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liu L, Cheng L, Liu Y, Jia Y, Rosenblum DS (2015) Recognizing complex activities by a Probabilistic Interval-Based Model, no. pinhanez 1999, pp 1266–1272Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Liu Y, Nie L, Liu L, Rosenblum DS (2016) Neurocomputing From action to activity: Sensor-based activity recognition. Neurocomputing 181:108–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lo Cigno R, Russo A, Carra D (2008) On some fundamental properties of p2p push/pull protocols. In: Second international conference on communications and electronics, pp 67–73Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lu Y, Wei Y, Liu L, Sun L, Liu Y, Zhong J (2016) Towards unsupervised physical activity recognition using smartphone accelerometers, Multimedia Tools and ApplicationsGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Magharei N, Rejaie R (2006) Understanding Mesh-based Peer-to-Peer Streaming. In: Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on network and operating systems support for digital audio and video, pp 10Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Magnetto A, Gaeta R, Grangetto M, Sereno M (2010) TURINstream: A totally pUsh, robust, and effIcieNt P2P video streaming architecture. IEEE Trans Multimed 12(8):901–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Meskovic M, Kos M, Meskovic A (2015) Optimal chunk scheduling algorithm based on taboo search for adaptive live video streaming in CDN-P2P. In: 23rd international conference on software, telecommunications and computer networks, SoftCOM, pp 205–209Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mol JJD, Bakker A, Pouwelse JA, Epema DHJ, Sips HJ (2009) The design and deployment of a bittorrent live video streaming solution. In: ISM 2009 - 11th IEEE international symposium on multimedia, pp 342–49Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    NetTv (2017) [online]. available: [accessed: 11-jan-2017]
  43. 43.
    Padmanabhan V, Wang H, Chou PP (2002) Distributing streaming media content using cooperative networking, pp 177–186Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    PPTV (2016) [online]. available: [accessed: 01-oct-2016]
  45. 45.
    PPTV (2016)
  46. 46.
    Rejaie R, Ortega A (2003) Pals: Peer-to-peer adaptive layered streaming. In: Proceedings of the 13th international workshop on network and operating systems support for digital audio and video (NOSSDAV), pp 153–161Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Russo A, Lo Cigno R (2010) Delay-aware push/pull protocols for live video streaming in p2p systems. In: IEEE international conference on communications, pp 3–7Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schwarz H, Marpe D, Wiegand T (2007) Overview of the scalable video coding extension of the h.264/AVC standard. IEEE Trans Circ Syst Video Technol 17 (9):1103–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Seyyedi SMY, Akbari B (2011) Hybrid CDN-p2p architectures for live video streaming: Comparative study of connected and unconnected meshes. In: 2011 International Symposium on Computer Networks and Distributed Systems, cnds 2011, pp 175–180Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Shen H, Lin Y, Li J (2015) A Social-Network-Aided Efficient Peer-to-Peer Live Streaming system. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 23(3):987–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    SopCast (2016) [online]. available: [accessed: 15-oct-2016]
  52. 52.
    Summary E (2017) Index, Cisco visual networking: Forecast and Methodology, 2014-2019 White Paper - white_paper_c11-481360.pdfGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Szymkowiak M, Iwinska M (2016) Characterizations of Discrete Weibull related distributions. Stat Probab Lett 111:41–48MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tran HTT, Won Y, Kim J (2017) An efficient hybrid push-pull methodology for peer-to-peer video live streaming system on mobile broadcasting social media. Multimed Tools Appl 76(2):2557–2568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Triningsih E, Bandung Y (2016) Bandwidth allocation-aware scheduling algorithm for video-on-demand application over digital learning network. In: International conference on ICT for smart society (ICISS), pp 6–11Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tu X, Jin H, Cao J, Guo S (2013) An efficient data scheduling scheme for P2P Storage-Constrained IPTV system. IEEE Trans Syst Man, Cybern Syst 43 (2):379–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    UUSee (2016)
  58. 58.
    Vlavianos A, Iliofotou M, Faloutsos M (2006) Bitos: Enhancing bittorrent for supporting streaming applications. In: INFOCOM 2006. 25th IEEE international conference on computer communications. proceedings, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wang W, Barnard M, Ying L (2015) Decentralized Scheduling with Data Locality for Data-Parallel Computation on Peer-to-Peer networks. In: 2015 53rd annual allerton conference on communication, control, and computing (Allerton), pp 337–344Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Xiao X, Shi Y, Gao Y, Zhang Q (2009) Layerp2p: A new data scheduling approach for layered streaming in heterogeneous networks. In: Proceedings - IEEE Infocom, pp 603–611Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Xie S, Li B, Member S, Keung GY, Zhang X, Member S (2007) Coolstreaming: Design, theory, and practice. IEEE Trans Multimed 9(8):1661–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    YouTube (2017) [online]. available: [accessed: 11-jan-2017]
  63. 63.
    Yu L, Jin H, Jiang W, Liao G, Liao X (2012) Self-adaptive schedule mechanism for peer-to-peer multi-rate live streaming system, inproceedings of the 14th IEEE international conference on high performance computing and communications, HPCC-2012 - 9th IEEE international conference on embedded software and systems, ICESS, pp 666–672Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Zhang M, Zhang Q (2007) Understanding the Power of Pull- based Streaming Protocol: Can We Do Better? Presented by Rabin Karki Background. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 25(9):1678–1694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zhang X, Liu J, Li B, Yum TSP (2005) Coolstreaming/DONet: A data-driven overlay network for efficient live media streaming, Proc. IEEE Infocom 3 (C):13–17Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Zhang M, Xiong Y, Zhang Q, Sun L, Yang S (2009) Optimizing the throughput of data-driven peer-to-peer streaming. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 20 (1):97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Zhang J, Xing W, Wang Y, Lu D (2014) Modeling and performance analysis of pull-based live streaming schemes in Peer-to-Peer network. Comput Commun 40 (1):22–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Zhang J, Yang C, Zhang X (2016) A high-bandwidth live streaming model in mesh-based peer-to-peer networks. IEEE Commun Lett 20(12):2390–2393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zheng G, Chan SHG, Luo X, Begen AC (2009) Pattern-push: A low-delay mesh-push scheduling for live peer-to-peer streaming. In: Proceedings - 2009 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, ICME 2009, pp 1158–1161Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zheng Y, Lin F, Yang Y, Gan T (2016) Adaptive resource scheduling mechanism in P2P file sharing system. Peer-to-Peer Netw Appl 9(6):1089–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Zhou Y, Fu TZJ, Chiu DM (2015) A Unifying Model and Analysis of P2P VoD Replication and Scheduling. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 23(4):1163–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kunwar Pal
    • 1
  • Mahesh Chandra Govil
    • 2
  • Mushtaq Ahmed
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringMalaviya National Institute of TechnologyJaipurIndia
  2. 2.National Institute of Technology SikkimSikkimIndia

Personalised recommendations