Proceedings of the 18th International Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video 2008
DOI: 10.1145/1496046.1496056
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Analyzing video services in Web 2.0

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
39
1
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 65 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
39
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…They analyzed YouTube video distribution architecture, and found that YouTube deploys a large number of video caching server, that vary in size and geographical locations, in order to reduce cost and improve the end-user performance. Saxena et al [16] analyzed how three video content providers (YouTube, Dailymotion and Metacafe) distribute their video streaming services in terms of clients' geographical locations and video characteristics such as age and popularity. Our approach differs from the prior work in two aspects: a) Noticeably, in some cases, we found that YouTube assigns a non-optimal video content server to a client; b) Unlike ALTO [7], our proposed solutions do not require any additional implementation neither at the server nor at the client.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They analyzed YouTube video distribution architecture, and found that YouTube deploys a large number of video caching server, that vary in size and geographical locations, in order to reduce cost and improve the end-user performance. Saxena et al [16] analyzed how three video content providers (YouTube, Dailymotion and Metacafe) distribute their video streaming services in terms of clients' geographical locations and video characteristics such as age and popularity. Our approach differs from the prior work in two aspects: a) Noticeably, in some cases, we found that YouTube assigns a non-optimal video content server to a client; b) Unlike ALTO [7], our proposed solutions do not require any additional implementation neither at the server nor at the client.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, in [10] there is an analytical comparison among YouTube and other video sharing services via crawling the websites and measuring delays. In [11], there is a comparison between PC and mobile users of YouTube and how their behavior can be related to system performance degradation.…”
Section: B Infrastructurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, they do not study a deeply distributed CDN like Akamai which handles dynamic content. Several studies have investigated data center performance [10], [20]. The WhyHigh tool [10] diagnoses high latency to Google's data centers and finds causes related to inter-domain routing, however effective solutions are not proposed.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%