skip to main content
research-article

On the Performance Comparisons of Native and Clientless Real-Time Screen-Sharing Technologies

Published:29 May 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Daniel Beer. 2019. QR Decoder Library. Retrieved from https://github.com/dlbeer/quirc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Denso Wave Incorporated. 2019. QRcode.com | Denso Wave. Retrieved from https://www.qrcode.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. FFmpeg Team. 2019. FFmpeg. Retrieved from http://ffmpeg.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. GlavSoft LLC. 2019. TightVNC: VNC-Compatible Free Remote Control / Remote Desktop Software. Retrieved from https://www.tightvnc.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Google. 2019. Stadia. Retrieved from https://stadia.dev/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Joel Martin. 2019. noVNC. Retrieved from https://novnc.com/info.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Microsoft Corp. 2018. Remote Desktop Protocol. Retrieved from https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/termserv/remote-desktop-protocol.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. MinGW.org. 2019. MinGW | Minimalist GNU for Windows. Retrieved from http://www.mingw.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Miniwatts Marketing Group. 2019. World Internet Users Statistics and 2019 World Population Stats. Retrieved from www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Tristan Richardson, Quentin Stafford-Fraser, Kenneth R. Wood, and Andy Hopper. 1998. Virtual network computing. IEEE Internet Comput. 2 (Feb. 1998), 33–38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Ron Sharp. 2012. Latency in cloud-based interactive streaming content. Bell Labs Tech. J. 17, 2 (Sept. 2012), 67–80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Shu Shi and Cheng-Hsin Hsu. 2015. A survey of interactive remote rendering systems. Comput. Surv. 47, 4 (2015), 57:1–57:29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Sony Interactive Entertainment. 2019. PS4 Remote Play Windows PC/Mac. Retrieved from https://remoteplay.dl.playstation.net/remoteplay/lang/en/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Valve Corporation. 2019. Steam In-Home Streaming. Retrieved from https://store.steampowered.com/streaming/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. WebRTC. 2019. WebRTC Home | WebRTC. Retrieved from https://webrtc.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. On the Performance Comparisons of Native and Clientless Real-Time Screen-Sharing Technologies

      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

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications
        ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications  Volume 17, Issue 2
        May 2021
        410 pages
        ISSN:1551-6857
        EISSN:1551-6865
        DOI:10.1145/3461621
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        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: 29 May 2021
        • Accepted: 1 November 2020
        • Revised: 1 August 2020
        • Received: 1 February 2020
        Published in tomm Volume 17, Issue 2

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)18
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format