skip to main content
10.1145/3458305.3463375acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmmsysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access
Best Paper

Livelyzer: analyzing the first-mile ingest performance of live video streaming

Published:15 July 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Over-the-top (OTT) live video traffic has grown significantly, fueled by fundamental shifts in how users consume video content (e.g., increased cord-cutting) and by improvements in camera technologies, computing power, and wireless resources. A key determining factor for the end-to-end live streaming QoE is the design of the first-mile upstream ingest path that captures and transmits the live content in real-time, from the broadcaster to the remote video server. This path often involves either a Wi-Fi or cellular component, and is likely to be bandwidth-constrained with time-varying capacity, making the task of high-quality video delivery challenging. Today, there is little understanding of the state of the art in the design of this critical path, with existing research focused mainly on the downstream distribution path, from the video server to end viewers.

To shed more light on the first-mile ingest aspect of live streaming, we propose Livelyzer, a generalized active measurement and black-box testing framework for analyzing the performance of this component in popular live streaming software and services under controlled settings. We use Livelyzer to characterize the ingest behavior and performance of several live streaming platforms, identify design deficiencies that lead to poor performance, and propose best practice design recommendations to improve the same.

References

  1. ITU-TP. 910. 2008. Subjective Video Quality Assessment Methods for Multimedia Applications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Adeel Abbas. 2020. Introducing VMAF percentiles for video quality measurements. https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/topics/infrastructure/2020/introducing-vmaf-percentiles-for-video-quality-measurements.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Adobe. 2012. Adobe's Real Time Messaging Protocol. https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/devnet/rtmp/pdf/rtmp_specification_1.0.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Roman Arutyunyan. 2020. NGINX-based Media Streaming Server. https://github.com/arut/nginx-rtmp-module.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Abdelhak Bentaleb, Christian Timmerer, Ali C Begen, and Roger Zimmermann. 2019. Bandwidth prediction in low-latency chunked streaming. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video. 7--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bitmovin. 2019. Bitmovin Video Developer Report 2019. https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/3411032/Bitmovin%20Magazine/Video%20Developer%20Report%202019/bitmovin-video-developer-report-2019.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Francesco Bronzino, Paul Schmitt, Sara Ayoubi, Guilherme Martins, Renata Teixeira, and Nick Feamster. 2020. Inferring streaming video quality from encrypted traffic: Practical models and deployment experience. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review 48, 1 (2020), 27--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Jan De Cock, Aditya Mavlankar, Anush Moorthy, and Anne Aaron. 2016. A large-scale video codec comparison of x264, x265 and libvpx for practical VOD applications. In Applications of Digital Image Processing XXXIX, Vol. 9971. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 997116.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Jie Deng, Gareth Tyson, Felix Cuadrado, and Steve Uhlig. 2017. Internet scale user-generated live video streaming: The Twitch case. In International Conference on Passive and Active Network Measurement. Springer, 60--71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Google Developers. 2020. Real-time communication for the web. https://webrtc.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Facebook. 2020. FB: How to Go Live on Mobile? https://www.facebook.com/business/help/1884140525218868.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Facebook. 2020. How do I go live from my Facebook Page? https://www.facebook.com/help/1916203341847533.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Facebook. 2020. How do I set up streaming software to work with Facebook? https://www.facebook.com/help/755943624557739.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Facebook. 2020. What are the video format guidelines for live streaming on Facebook? https://www.facebook.com/help/1534561009906955.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. FFmpeg. 2021. A complete, cross-platform solution to record, convert and stream audio and video. https://ffmpeg.orgGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. International Organization for Standardization. 2014. ISO/IEC 14496-15:2014 Information technology --- Coding of audio-visual objects --- Part 15: Carriage of network abstraction layer (NAL) unit structured video in ISO base media file format. https://www.iso.org/standard/65216.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. International Organization for Standardization. 2020. ISO/IEC 23000-19:2020 Information technology --- Multimedia application format (MPEG-A) --- Part 19: Common media application format (CMAF) for segmented media. https://www.iso.org/standard/79106.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. DASH Industry Forum. 2020. Low-latency Modes for DASH. https://dashif.org/docs/CR-Low-Latency-Live-r8.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. DASH Industry Forum. 2021. DASH-IF Live Media Ingest Protocol Technical Specification, 26 February 2021. https://dashif-documents.azurewebsites.net/Ingest/master/DASH-IF-Ingest.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Sadjad Fouladi, John Emmons, Emre Orbay, Catherine Wu, Riad S Wahby, and Keith Winstein. 2018. Salsify: Low-latency network video through tighter integration between a video codec and a transport protocol. In 15th {USENIX} Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation ({NSDI} 18).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Maximilian Grüner, Melissa Licciardello, and Ankit Singla. 2020. Reconstructing proprietary video streaming algorithms. In 2020 {USENIX} Annual Technical Conference ({USENIX} {ATC} 20).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Oliver L Haimson and John C Tang. 2017. What makes live events engaging on Facebook Live, Periscope, and Snapchat. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 48--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Dexter Tan Guan Hao. 2019. Mixer's Faster Than Light streaming protocol explained. https://dotesports.com/streaming/news/mixers-faster-than-light-streaming-protocol-explained.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Cisco Visual Networking Index. 2019. Forecast and Methodology 2017--2022. Cisco: San Jose, CA, USA (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Jaehong Kim, Youngmok Jung, Hyunho Yeo, Juncheol Ye, and Dongsu Han. 2020. Neural-Enhanced Live Streaming: Improving Live Video Ingest via Online Learning. In Proceedings of the Annual conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication on the applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communication. 107--125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Emily Krings. 2021. What is RTMPS and Why is it Important to Secure Streaming? https://www.dacast.com/blog/rtmps-streaming/#:~:text=that%20it%20provides.-,RTMP%20vs.,stream%20with%20the%20secure%20alternativeGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhi Li, Anne Aaron, Ioannis Katsavounidis, Anush Moorthy, and Megha Manohara. 2016. Toward A Practical Perceptual Video Quality Metric. https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/toward-a-practical-perceptual-video-quality-metric-653f208b9652Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhi Li, Christos Bampis, Julie Novak, Anne Aaron, Kyle Swanson, Anush Moorthy, and Jan De Cock. 2018. VMAF: The Journey Continues. https://netflixtechblog.com/vmaf-the-journey-continues-44b51ee9ed12Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Joe Yuchieh Lin, Tsung-Jung Liu, Eddy Chi-Hao Wu, and C-C Jay Kuo. 2014. A fusion-based video quality assessment (FVQA) index. In Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference (APSIPA), 2014 Asia-Pacific. IEEE, 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Tsung-Jung Liu, Yu-Chieh Lin, Weisi Lin, and C-C Jay Kuo. 2013. Visual quality assessment: recent developments, coding applications and future trends. APSIPA Transactions on Signal and Information Processing 2 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Xing Liu, Bo Han, Feng Qian, and Matteo Varvello. 2019. LIME: understanding commercial 360° live video streaming services. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference. 154--164.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Tarun Mangla, Emir Halepovic, Ellen Zegura, and Mostafa Ammar. 2020. Drop the packets: using coarse-grained data to detect video performance issues. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies. 71--77.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Tarun Mangla, Ellen Zegura, Mostafa Ammar, Emir Halepovic, Kyung-Wook Hwang, Rittwik Jana, and Marco Platania. 2018. VideoNOC: Assessing video QoE for network operators using passive measurements. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference. 101--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Hongzi Mao, Ravi Netravali, and Mohammad Alizadeh. 2017. Neural adaptive video streaming with pensieve. In Proceedings of the Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication. 197--210.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Matthew K Mukerjee, David Naylor, Junchen Jiang, Dongsu Han, Srinivasan Seshan, and Hui Zhang. 2015. Practical, real-time centralized control for cdn-based live video delivery. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Special Interest Group on Data Communication. 311--324.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Ashkan Nikravesh, Qi Alfred Chen, Scott Haseley, Xiao Zhu, Geoffrey Challen, and Z Morley Mao. 2018. QoE inference and improvement without end-host control. In 2018 IEEE/ACM Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC). IEEE, 43--57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Yong Niu, Yong Li, Depeng Jin, Li Su, and Athanasios V Vasilakos. 2015. A survey of millimeter wave communications (mmWave) for 5G: opportunities and challenges. Wireless networks 21, 8 (2015), 2657--2676.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Roger Pantos. 2020. HTTP Live Streaming 2nd Edition. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pantos-hls-rfc8216bis-07.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Karine Pires and Gwendal Simon. 2015. YouTube live and Twitch: a tour of user-generated live streaming systems. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM multimedia systems conference. 225--230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Yanyuan Qin, Shuai Hao, Krishna R Pattipati, Feng Qian, Subhabrata Sen, Bing Wang, and Chaoqun Yue. 2018. ABR streaming of VBR-encoded videos: characterization, challenges, and solutions. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies. 366--378.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Devdeep Ray, Jack Kosaian, KV Rashmi, and Srinivasan Seshan. 2019. Vantage: optimizing video upload for time-shifted viewing of social live streams. In Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication. 380--393.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Eric Rescorla, Hannes Tschofenig, and Nagendra Modadugu. 2018. The Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version 1.3. https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-01.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Selenium. 2021. Selenium automates browsers. https://www.selenium.devGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Matti Siekkinen, Teemu Kämäräinen, Leonardo Favario, and Enrico Masala. 2018. Can you see what I see? Quality-of-experience measurements of mobile live video broadcasting. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM) 14, 2s (2018), 1--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Matti Siekkinen, Enrico Masala, and Teemu Kämäräinen. 2016. A first look at quality of mobile live streaming experience: the case of periscope. In Proceedings of the 2016 Internet Measurement Conference. 477--483.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Iraj Sodagar. 2011. The mpeg-dash standard for multimedia streaming over the internet. IEEE multimedia 18, 4 (2011), 62--67.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Denny Stohr, Tao Li, Stefan Wilk, Silvia Santini, and Wolfgang Effelsberg. 2015. An analysis of the YouNow live streaming platform. In 2015 IEEE 40th local computer networks conference workshops (LCN Workshops). IEEE, 673--679.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. OBS Studio. 2020. Open Broadcast Software. https://obsproject.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Gary J Sullivan, Jens-Rainer Ohm, Woo-Jin Han, and Thomas Wiegand. 2012. Overview of the high efficiency video coding (HEVC) standard. IEEE Transactions on circuits and systems for video technology 22, 12 (2012), 1649--1668.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. John C Tang, Gina Venolia, and Kori M Inkpen. 2016. Meerkat and periscope: I stream, you stream, apps stream for live streams. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 4770--4780.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Twitch. 2020. Twitch Recommended Software for Broadcasting. https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/recommended-software-for-broadcasting?language=en_US.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. umlaeute. 2020. v4l2loopback - a kernel module to create V4L2 loopback devices. https://github.com/umlaeute/v4l2loopback.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. VideoLAN. 2021. x265. https://www.videolan.org/developers/x265.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Bolun Wang, Xinyi Zhang, Gang Wang, Haitao Zheng, and Ben Y Zhao. 2016. Anatomy of a personalized livestreaming system. In Proceedings of the 2016 Internet Measurement Conference. 485--498.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. 2004. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing 13, 4 (2004), 600--612.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Wikipedia. [n.d.]. Reed-Solomon error correction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correctionGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Wikipedia. 2020. QR code. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_code.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Shichang Xu, Eric Petajan, Subhabrata Sen, and Z Morley Mao. 2020. What you see is what you get: measure ABR video streaming QoE via on-device screen recording. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video. 60--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Shichang Xu, Subhabrata Sen, and Z Morley Mao. 2020. CSI: inferring mobile ABR video adaptation behavior under HTTPS and QUIC. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth European Conference on Computer Systems. 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Shichang Xu, Subhabrata Sen, Z Morley Mao, and Yunhan Jia. 2017. Dissecting VOD services for cellular: performance, root causes and best practices. In Proceedings of the 2017 Internet Measurement Conference. 220--234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Yang Xu, Chenguang Yu, Jingjiang Li, and Yong Liu. 2012. Video telephony for end-consumers: measurement study of Google+, iChat, and Skype. In Proceedings of the 2012 Internet Measurement Conference. 371--384.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Francis Y Yan, Hudson Ayers, Chenzhi Zhu, Sadjad Fouladi, James Hong, Keyi Zhang, Philip Levis, and Keith Winstein. 2020. Learning in situ: a randomized experiment in video streaming. In 17th {USENIX} Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation ({NSDI} 20). 495--511.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Xiaoqi Yin, Abhishek Jindal, Vyas Sekar, and Bruno Sinopoli. 2015. A control-theoretic approach for dynamic adaptive video streaming over HTTP. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Special Interest Group on Data Communication.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Youtube. 2020. Create a live stream on mobile - Android - Youtube Help. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9228390?hl=en.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Youtube. 2020. Create a live stream via webcam - Youtube Help. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9228389?hl=en&ref_topic=9257984.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Youtube. 2020. How to Live Stream On Youtube - How Youtube Works. https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/product-features/live/#youtube-live.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Youtube. 2020. YouTube Live verified encoders. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2907883?hl=en&ref_topic=9257984#zippy=%2Csoftware-encoders.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Cong Zhang and Jiangchuan Liu. 2015. On crowdsourced interactive live streaming: a twitch. tv-based measurement study. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Huanhuan Zhang, Anfu Zhou, Jiamin Lu, Ruoxuan Ma, Yuhan Hu, Cong Li, Xinyu Zhang, Huadong Ma, and Xiaojiang Chen. 2020. OnRL: improving mobile video telephony via online reinforcement learning. In The 26th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking. 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Anfu Zhou, Huanhuan Zhang, Guangyuan Su, Leilei Wu, Ruoxuan Ma, Zhen Meng, Xinyu Zhang, Xiufeng Xie, Huadong Ma, and Xiaojiang Chen. 2019. Learning to Coordinate Video Codec with Transport Protocol for Mobile Video Telephony. In The 25th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking. 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Livelyzer: analyzing the first-mile ingest performance of live video streaming

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        MMSys '21: Proceedings of the 12th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference
        June 2021
        254 pages
        ISBN:9781450384346
        DOI:10.1145/3458305

        Copyright © 2021 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 15 July 2021

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        MMSys '21 Paper Acceptance Rate18of55submissions,33%Overall Acceptance Rate176of530submissions,33%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader