Performance Evaluation of Video Streaming on A ROCKS Cluster. Mr. Teeradach Johnsamer Dr. Sudsanguan Ngamsuriyaroj MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY

Transcription

1 Performance Evaluation of Video Streaming on A ROCKS Cluster. Mr. Teeradach Johnsamer Dr. Sudsanguan Ngamsuriyaroj MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY 1

2 Outline 1. Introduction 2. Motivation 3. Objectives of Research Project 4. Scope of Research Project 5. Background 6. Design of A Clustered Video Streaming Server 7. Experiments and Results 8. Conclusions and Future work 2

3 Introduction The abundance of digital multimedia contents and continuously increasing requirements to high quality digital media online via the Internet. Multimedia streaming is the novel technology that allows users to play digital audio and video live or pre-recorded from a web server. 3

4 Motivation Study the performance of a video streaming clustered server. Design and implementation of a video streaming clustered server, the workload and the performance are considered. The workload would be a benchmark to evaluate a computer system in terms of performance. 4

5 Objectives To design and implement a video streaming clustered server based on a ROCKS cluster system that can support a large number of users To evaluate the performance of a video streaming server on a ROCKS cluster, Parallel Virtual File Systems (PVFS2) and Linux Virtual Server (LVS) To measure the performance of a video streaming server on a ROCKS cluster using varying benchmark tools 5

6 Scope The ROCKS clustered system used in our work is a cluster of 5 PCs connected together with the Gigabit Ethernet Two file systems are installed on the ROCKS clustered system. They are PVFS2 (Parallel Virtual File System) and LVS (Linux Virtual Server) The digital video file format used in the experiments both QuickTime and Realvideo Three benchmark tools used in our experiments are Webbench, Httperf, and Realtracer. 6

7 Background Basic Concepts of Video Streaming Video Streaming Protocols and Standards Architecture and Characteristics of Video Streaming Servers Cluster computing Parallel File System Concept Linux Virtual Server 7

8 Basic Problems in Video Streaming Bandwidth Bandwidth available between two points in the Internet is generally unknown and time-varying. Delay jitter Delay jitter is a problem because the receiver must receive/decode/display frames at a constant rate. Loss rate Loss may occur, and depends on the available bandwidth of a network. 8

9 Video Streaming Protocols and Standards HTTP: RTSP: The Real Time Streaming Protocol defined in RFC The URL has the form rtsp://host(:port)/abs path. RTP: the Real Time Protocol (RTP) become an IETF proposed standard in 1996 (RFC1889). RTP consists of two parts: a transport protocol RTP and a control protocol RTCP. 9

10 Architecture and Characteristics of Video Streaming Servers Single Server Cluster Server Centralized Streaming Server to Cluster Streaming Server. 10

11 Rocks Cluster hardware and software architecture Cluster Hardware Frontend node. Computer node. Ethernet network. Cluster monitoring System logger. SNMP. Ganglia. Typical Rocks cluster layout.[27] 11

12 Parallel Virtual File System PVFS2 Client - Server architecture. Two functions Metadata server - keeps track of file metadata (permissions, owner) and directory structure. I/O servers - orchestrate movement of data between clients and local I/O devices. 12

13 Linux Virtual Server (LVS) Concept The Linux Virtual Server Project (LVS) implements layer 4 switching in the Linux Kernel. This allows TCP and UDP sessions to load balanced between multiple real servers. Linux Director: Host with Linux and LVS installed which receives packets from end users and forwards them to real servers. End User: Host that originates a connection. Real Server: Host that receives a connection. It has a web server such as Apache on top. 13

14 LVS Scheduling for Load Balancing Round-Robin Scheduling Weighted Round-Robin Scheduling Least-Connection Scheduling Weighted Least-Connection Scheduling Locality-Based Least-Connection Scheduling Locality-Based Least-Connection with Replication Scheduling Destination Hashing Scheduling Source Hashing Scheduling Shortest Expected Delay Scheduling Never Queue Scheduling 14

15 Proposed Architecture Architecture of Clustered Video Streaming Server. 15

16 System Components Frontend ( load balancer) is responsible to load balancing and to store and maintain host and cluster information. Video server nodes (storage server) is responsible to store video files. Client is responsible to access stored object video through Web. Administrator is responsible for management of cluster streaming server. 16

17 Software Architecture (a) (b) Application Layer on Rocks Cluster for Video Streaming. 17

18 Hardware Configuration Host Cluster Compute-0-0 Compute-0-1 Compute-0-2 Compute-0-3 CPU Pentium 4, 2.7 GHz Pentium 4, 2.7 GHz Pentium 4, 2.7 GHz Pentium 4, 2.7 GHz Pentium 4, 2.7 GHz Memory 512 MB RAM 256 MB RAM 256 MB RAM 256 MB RAM 256 MB RAM H/D 40 GB 40 GB 40 GB 40 GB 40 GB NIC 1000Mbps (eth0) 1000Mbps (eth0) 1000Mbps (eth0) 1000Mbps (eth0) 1000Mbps (eth0) and 100Mbps (eth1) IP and

19 Software Configuration Software Rocks Cluster Linux Virtual Server Parallel Virtual File System Darwin Streaming Version Rocks (Whitney) Linux Kernel EL4 IPVsadm is the Administrator utility (ipvsadm i386.rpm) Parallel Virtual File System (PVFS2) (PVFS tar.gz) Darwin Streaming Server version 5.5 (DarwinStreamingSrvr5.5-Linux.tar.tar) MYSQL MySQl Apache Web Server Apache 2.0 Benchmarking WebBench 5.0, httperf web performance, RealTracer 19

20 Selected Performance Tools WebBench 5.0 Httperf RealTracer 20

21 What is WebBench? Webbench is a licensed PC Magazine benchmark program that measures the performance of Webserver. Webbench uses PC/Windows clients to send request to the server for static files that replace on the server. Webbench calculates two overall scores: Requests per second Throughput in bytes per second Output in Excel formats. Webbench controller can view all results. 21

22 What is Httperf? Httperf is a tool for UNIX-Like Operating Systems to measure web server performance. It is a command-line tool. Generate a number of workload and connect via the HTTP protocol. Example httperf --server = port= 80 --uri=/web_test/lookdeep_320x240.mov -- num-conn=100 --num-call=1 --rate=10 As above, except that 100 connections are creased at a fixed rate of 10 per second 22

23 Httperf Output httperf --client=0/1 --server= port=80 --uri=/web_test/lookdeep_320x240.mov -- rate=10 --send-buffer= recv-buffer= num-conns=100 --num-calls=1 Maximum connect burst length: 1 Total: connections 100 requests 100 replies 100 test-duration s Connection rate: 0.9 conn/s ( ms/conn, <=100 concurrent connections) Connection time [ms]: min avg max median 0.0 stddev Connection time [ms]: connect 0.4 Connection length [replies/conn]: Request rate: 0.9 req/s ( ms/req) Request size [B]: 93.0 Reply rate [replies/s]: min 0.0 avg 0.7 max 3.6 stddev 1.0 (23 samples) Reply time [ms]: response transfer Reply size [B]: header content footer 0.0 (total ) Reply status: 1xx=0 2xx=100 3xx=0 4xx=0 5xx=0 CPU time [s]: user system (user 10.9% system 89.1% total 100.0%) Net I/O: KB/s (70.2*10^6 bps) Errors: total 0 client-timo 0 socket-timo 0 connrefused 0 connreset 0 Errors: fd-unavail 0 addrunavail 0 ftab-full 0 other 0 23

24 What is RealTracer? RealTracer, a publicly available set of tools for measuring the video and network characteristics. RealTracer includes RealTracker and RealData. RealTracker: a customized video player from playlist and records video performance information. RealData: a data analysis tool that helps manage, parse and analyze data captured by RealTracker. RealTracer gathers system statistics: bandwidth, transport protocol, frame rate, jitter, frames dropped. 24

25 Experiments Experiments Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3 Tools Webbench Httperf Realtracer File System PVFS2 vs LVS PVFS2 vs LVS PVFS2 vs LVS Parameter Clients 1-32 Request rates Clients 1-5 Video files size MB MB MB Metrics - Throughput - Response time - Bandwidth - Requests per second - Transfer time - Frame rate - Jitter - Frame lost 25

26 WebBench Results on PVFS2 and LVS WebBench results on PVFS2 and LVS 26

27 Httperf Results on PVFS2 and LVS Httperf results on PVFS2 and LVS 27

28 RealTracer Results on PVFS2 and LVS Experiment Results of RealTracer on PVFS2 and LVS 28

29 Response tims (ms) Transfer Time (ms) Experiment on 10 LVS Scheduling Algorithms via Httperf httperf for LVS Algorithms (Response time) wrr rr wlc lc dh sh nq sed lblc lblcr Algorithms Requests rate httperf for LVS Algorithms (Transfer Time) wrr rr wlc lc dh sh nq sed lblc lblcr Algorithms Requests rate Experiment results on 10 LVS scheduling algorithms via httperf 29

30 Duraiton (s) System CPU time(s) Network Net I/O (KB) Experiment on 10 LVS Scheduling Algorithms via Httperf httperf for LVS Algorithms (System CPU time) wrr rr wlc lc dh sh nq sed lblc lblcr Algorithms Requests rate httperf for LVS Algorithms (Network Net I/O) wrr rr wlc lc dh sh nq sed lblc lblcr Algorithms Requests rate httperf for LVS Algorithms (Duration) wrr rr wlc lc dh sh nq sed lblc lblcr Algorithms Requests rate Experiment results on 10 LVS scheduling algorithms via httperf 30

31 Bandwidth Bandwidth Experiment on 10 LVS Scheduling Algorithms via RealTracer Compare Average Bandwidth of video 25 MB (20FPS) on LVS algorithms Compare Average Bandwidth of video 50 MB (30 FPS) on LVS algorithms dh lblc lblcr lc nq rr sed sh wlc wrr Algorithms dh lblc lblcr lc nq rr sed sh wlc wrr Algoritms 31 Experiment results on 10 LVS scheduling algorithms via Realtracer

32 Conclusions Evaluated the performance of video streaming servers on a Rocks cluster using PVFS2 or LVS Using three popular benchmark tools: Webbench based on Requests per second and Throughput Httperf based on Response time and Transfer time Realtracer based on Bandwidth, Frame rate, Jitter and Frame lost Parameters: Request rate and Video file size LVS has better performance than PVFS2 For 10 LVS scheduling The Destination Hashing Scheduling gives the lower performance than other LVS algorithms 32

33 Problems and Limitations The hardware configuration would be an essential issue Webbench used to measure the web server performance LVS gives better performance than PVFS2 for httperf But Realtracer, the results cannot be concluded that LVS is better than PVFS2 33

34 Future Work More studies on the architecture of video streaming on a Rocks cluster Find a suitable benchmarking tool to evaluate the performance of video streaming on a ROCKS cluster Study appropriate set of performance metrics for video streaming on a ROCKS cluster 34

35 References 1. Ashwatha Matthur, Padmavathi Mundur, Dynamic load balancing across mirrored multimedia servers, Bin Cheng, Hai Jin, Quan Yuan, OMFS: An Object-Oriented Multimedia File System for Cluster Streaming Server, IEEE Computer Society, Chang-Soon Park, Mann-Ho Lee, Young-Sung Son, and Oh-Young Kwon, Desgin and Implementation of VOD Server by Using Clustered File System, IEEE, Chao-Tung Yang, Ko-Tzu Wang, Kuan-Ching Li and Liang-The Lee, Applying Linux High-Availability and Load Balancing Servers for Video-on-Demand (VOD) Systems, PCM 2004, LNCS 3332, pp , Cyrus Shababi, Roger Zimmermann, Kun Fu Shu Yuen and Didi Yao, Yima: A second-generation Continuous Media Server, June David Mosberger, Tai Jin, httperf-a tool for Measuring Web Server Performance, Technical Report, HP Laboratories, Palo Alto, Des Casey, Learning From or Through the Web: Models of Web Based Education, ITiCSE, Hai Jin and Xiaofei Liao, Owl: A New Multimedia Data Splitting Scheme for Cluster Video Server, IEEE Computer Society, Ibrahim Haddad and Greg Butler, Experimental Studies of Scalability in Clustered Web Systems, IEEE, April Jack Y. B. Lee, Parallel video servers: A tutorial, IEEE Multimedia, Jane Hynter, Varuni Witana, Mark Antoniades, A Review of Video Streaming over the Internet, DSTC Technical Report TR97-10, August John G. Apostolopouos, Wai-tian Tan, and Susie J. Wee, Video streaming: concepts, algorithm and systems, September John Gilbert, Migration of Multimedia Streams, Final Year Project, April Klaus Breidler, Harald Kosch and Laszlo Boszormenyi, A comparative Study of Selected Parallel Video Servers, IEEE, September

36 Reference (cont.) 15. Michael Vernick, Chitra Venkatramani and Tzi-cker Chiueh, Adventures in Building the Stony Brook Video Server, ACM Multimedia, Myung-Sup Kim, Mi-Joung Choi and James W.Hong, A load cluster management system using SNMP and web, Network Mgmt 2002;12: , 22 May Nalini Venkatasubramanian and Srinivas Ramanathan, Load Management in Distributed Video Server, Pal Halvorson, Carsten Griwodz, Ketil Lund, Vera Goebel and Thomas Plagemann, Storage Systems Support for Multimedia Applications, IEEE computer Society Vol.5, No.2, February Rahul Pradhan and Mark Claypool, Adaptive Content Delivery for Scalable Web Servers, Technical Report, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Roger L. Haskin, Tiger Shark-a scalable file system for multimedia, the IBM Journal of Research and Development, Volume 42, Number 2, March 1998, pp Stephen Tucker, Andrew Pigou and Thom D. Zaugg, e-learning-making it Happen Now,SIGUCCS 02, November 20-23, Supavadee Aramvith and Ming-Ting Sun, MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 Video Standards, Academic Press, Yubing wang and mark claypool, Realtracer Tools for Measuring the Performance of RealVideo on the Internet, Multimedia Tools and Applications, 27, , The Darwin Streaming Server [Online], Available from: The Linux Virtual Server HOWTO [Online], Available from: The Parallel Virtual File System Project [Online], Available from: The Rocks Cluster Distribution [Online], Available from: 36

37 Thank You 37