Abstract
Real-time screen-sharing provides users with ubiquitous access to remote applications, such as computer games, movie players, and desktop applications (apps), anywhere and anytime. In this article, we study the performance of different screen-sharing technologies, which can be classified into native and clientless ones. The native ones dictate that users install special-purpose software, while the clientless ones directly run in web browsers. In particular, we conduct extensive experiments in three steps. First, we identify a suite of the most representative native and clientless screen-sharing technologies. Second, we propose a systematic measurement methodology for comparing screen-sharing technologies under diverse and dynamic network conditions using different performance metrics. Last, we conduct extensive experiments and perform in-depth analysis to quantify the performance gap between clientless and native screen-sharing technologies. We found that our WebRTC-based implementation achieves the best overall performance. More precisely, it consumes a maximum of 3 Mbps bandwidth while reaching a high decoding ratio and delivering good video quality. Moreover, it leads to a steadily high decoding ratio and video quality under dynamic network conditions. By presenting the very first rigorous comparisons of the native and clientless screen-sharing technologies, this article will stimulate more exciting studies on the emerging clientless screen-sharing technologies.
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
Supplemental movie, appendix, image and software files for, On the Performance Comparisons of Native and Clientless Real-Time Screen-Sharing Technologies
- Maha Abdallah, Carsten Griwodz, Kuan-Ta Chen, Gwendal Simon, Pin-Chun Wang, and Cheng-Hsin Hsu. 2018. Delay-sensitive video computing in the cloud: A survey. ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Applic. 14, 3s (2018), 54:1–54:29. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Doreid. Ammar, Katrien De Moor, Min Xie, Markus Fiedler, and Poul Heegaard. 2016. Video QoE killer and performance statistics in WebRTC-based video communication. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications and Electronics (ICCE’16). 429–436.Google Scholar
- Daniel Beer. 2019. QR Decoder Library. Retrieved from https://github.com/dlbeer/quirc.Google Scholar
- Sumohana S. Channappayya, Alan C. Bovik, Constantine Caramanis, and Robert W. Heath. 2008. SSIM-optimal linear image restoration. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP’08). 765–768.Google Scholar
- Hao Chen, Xu Zhang, Yiling Xu, Ju Ren, Jingtao Fan, Zhan Ma, and Wenjun Zhang. 2019. T-gaming: A cost-efficient cloud gaming system at scale. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 30, 12 (2019), 2849–2865.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mark Claypool and Kajal Claypool. 2010. Latency can kill: Precision and deadline in online games. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMM Conference on Multimedia Systems (MMSys’10). 215–222. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mark Claypool and David Finkel. 2014. The effects of latency on player performance in cloud-based games. In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Network and Systems Support for Games (NetGames’14). 1–6. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mark Claypool, Tianhe Wang, and McIntyre Watts. 2015. A taxonomy for player actions with latency in network games. In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV’15). 67–72. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Denso Wave Incorporated. 2019. QRcode.com | Denso Wave. Retrieved from https://www.qrcode.com/.Google Scholar
- FFmpeg Team. 2019. FFmpeg. Retrieved from http://ffmpeg.org/.Google Scholar
- Rama Rao Ganji, Mihai Mitrea, Dancho Panovski, and Bojan Joveski. 2016. Improving the RDP based applications by using HTML5 content representation. Electron. Imag. 2016 (Feb. 2016), 1–7.Google Scholar
- Boni García, Luis López-Fernández, Micael Gallego, and Francisco Gortázar. 2016. Testing framework for WebRTC services. In Proceedings of the EAI International Conference on Mobile Multimedia Communications (MobiMedia’16). 40–47. Google ScholarDigital Library
- GlavSoft LLC. 2019. TightVNC: VNC-Compatible Free Remote Control / Remote Desktop Software. Retrieved from https://www.tightvnc.com/.Google Scholar
- Google. 2019. Stadia. Retrieved from https://stadia.dev/.Google Scholar
- Chih-Fan Hsu, De-Yu Chen, Chun-Ying Huang, Cheng-Hsin Hsu, and Kuan-Ta Chen. 2014. Screencast in the wild: Performance and limitations. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM’14). 813–816. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chih-Fan Hsu, Ching-Ling Fan, Tsung-Han Tsai, Chun-Ying Huang, Cheng-Hsin Hsu, and Kuan-Ta Chen. 2016. Toward an adaptive screencast platform: Measurement and optimization. ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Applic. 12, 5s (2016), 79:1–79:23. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chih-Fan Hsu, Tsung-Han Tsai, Chun-Ying Huang, Cheng-Hsin Hsu, and Kuan-Ta Chen. 2015. Screencast dissected: Performance measurements and design considerations. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMM Conference on Multimedia Systems (MMsys’15). 177–188. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chun-Ying Huang, Kuan-Ta Chen, De-Yu Chen, Hwai-Jung Hsu, and Cheng-Hsin Hsu. 2014. GamingAnywhere: The first open source cloud gaming system. ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Applic. 10, 1s (Jan. 2014), 10:1–10:25. Google ScholarDigital Library
- ISO/IEC 16022:2006(E) 2006. Information Technology—Automatic Identification and Data Capture Techniques—Data Matrix Bar Code Symbology Specification. Standard. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission.Google Scholar
- Benjamin F. Janzen and Robert J. Teather. 2014. Is 60 FPS better than 30?: The impact of frame rate and latency on moving target selection. In Proceedings of the the Extended Abstracts of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’14). 1477–1482. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Youming Lin, Teemu Kämäräinen, Mario Di Francesco, and Antti Ylä-Jääski. 2015. Performance evaluation of remote display access for mobile cloud computing. Comput. Commun. 72 (2015), 17–25. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Luis López, Miguel París, Santiago Carot, Boni García, Micael Gallego, Francisco Gortázar, Raul Benítez, Jose A. Santos, David Fernández, Radu Tom Vlad, Iván Gracia, and Francisco Javier López. 2016. Kurento: The WebRTC modular media server. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM’16). 1187–1191. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joel Martin. 2019. noVNC. Retrieved from https://novnc.com/info.html.Google Scholar
- Microsoft Corp. 2018. Remote Desktop Protocol. Retrieved from https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/termserv/remote-desktop-protocol.Google Scholar
- Microsoft Corp. 2019. Use Remote Assistance to Let Someone Fix Your PC. Retrieved from https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4026516/windows-use-remote-assistance-to-let-someone-fix-your-pc.Google Scholar
- MinGW.org. 2019. MinGW | Minimalist GNU for Windows. Retrieved from http://www.mingw.org/.Google Scholar
- Miniwatts Marketing Group. 2019. World Internet Users Statistics and 2019 World Population Stats. Retrieved from www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.Google Scholar
- Yasuhiro Mochida, Daisuke Shirai, and Tatsuya Fujii. 2016. Novel web-based remote collaboration system architecture for wider use cases. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP’16). 437–440. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Davide Mulfari, Antonio Celesti, Massimo Villari, and Antonio Puliafito. 2014. Using virtualization and noVNC to support assistive technology in cloud computing. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Network Cloud Computing and Applications (NCCA’14). 125–132. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hyunwoo Nam, Kyung-Hwa Kim, and Henning Schulzrinne. 2016. QoE matters more than QoS: Why people stop watching cat videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’16). 1–9.Google ScholarDigital Library
- NVIDIA. 2019. Game Anywhere on Your Mac, Windows PC, or SHIELD Device with NVIDIA’s Cloud Gaming Service. Retrieved from https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/geforce-now/.Google Scholar
- Tristan Richardson, Quentin Stafford-Fraser, Kenneth R. Wood, and Andy Hopper. 1998. Virtual network computing. IEEE Internet Comput. 2 (Feb. 1998), 33–38. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ron Sharp. 2012. Latency in cloud-based interactive streaming content. Bell Labs Tech. J. 17, 2 (Sept. 2012), 67–80. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nathan Sheldon, Eric Girard, Seth Borg, Mark Claypool, and Emmanuel Agu. 2003. The effect of latency on user performance in Warcraft III. In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Network and System Support for Games (NetGames’03). 3–14. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shu Shi, Cheng Hsu, Klara Nahrstedt, and Roy Campbell. 2011. Using graphics rendering contexts to enhance the real-time video coding for mobile cloud gaming. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM’11)103–112. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shu Shi and Cheng-Hsin Hsu. 2015. A survey of interactive remote rendering systems. Comput. Surv. 47, 4 (2015), 57:1–57:29. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sony Interactive Entertainment. 2019. PS4 Remote Play Windows PC/Mac. Retrieved from https://remoteplay.dl.playstation.net/remoteplay/lang/en/index.html.Google Scholar
- Matthias Ueberheide, Felix Klose, Tilak Varisetty, Markus Fidler, and Marcus Magnor. 2015. Web-based interactive free-viewpoint streaming: A framework for high quality interactive free viewpoint navigation. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM’15). 1031–1034. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Valve Corporation. 2019. Steam In-Home Streaming. Retrieved from https://store.steampowered.com/streaming/.Google Scholar
- WebRTC. 2019. WebRTC Home | WebRTC. Retrieved from https://webrtc.org/.Google Scholar
- Li Yan. 2011. Development and application of desktop virtualization technology. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communication Software and Networks (ICCCN’11). 326–329.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Youhui Zhang, Peng Qu, Jiang Cihang, and Weimin Zheng. 2015. A cloud gaming system based on user-level virtualization and its resource scheduling. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 27, 5 (2015), 1239–1252. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- On the Performance Comparisons of Native and Clientless Real-Time Screen-Sharing Technologies
Recommendations
GamingAnywhere: The first open source cloud gaming system
Special issue of best papers of ACM MMSys 2013 and ACM NOSSDAV 2013We present the first open source cloud gaming system, called GamingAnywhere. In addition to its openness, we have designed, GamingAnywhere for high extensibility, portability, and reconfigurability. We implemented it on Windows, Linux, OS X, and ...
GamingAnywhere: an open cloud gaming system
MMSys '13: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Multimedia Systems ConferenceCloud gaming is a promising application of the rapidly expanding cloud computing infrastructure. Existing cloud gaming systems, however, are closed-source with proprietary protocols, which raises the bars to setting up testbeds for experiencing cloud ...
Comments