skip to main content
10.1145/3555050.3569120acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesconextConference Proceedingsconference-collections

Coal not diamonds: how memory pressure falters mobile video QoE

Published:30 November 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

The popularity of video streaming on smartphones has led to rising demands for high-quality mobile video streaming. Consequently, we are observing growing support for higher resolution videos (e.g., HD, FHD, QHD) and higher video frame rates (e.g., 48 FPS, 60 FPS). However, supporting high-quality video streaming on smartphones introduces new challenges---besides the available network capacity, the smartphone itself can become a bottleneck due to resource constraints, such as low available memory. In this paper, we conduct an in-depth investigation of memory usage on smartphones and its impacts on mobile video streaming. Our investigation - driven by a combination of a user study, user survey, and experiments on real smartphones - reveals that (i) most smartphones observe memory pressure (i.e., low available memory scenarios), (ii) memory pressure can have a significant impact on mobile video QoE when streaming high-quality videos, e.g., resulting in the mean frame drop rate of 9--100% across smartphones and significantly lower user ratings, and (iii) the drop in mobile video QoE happens primarily due to the way in which video processes interact with kernel-level memory management mechanism, with opportunities for improving mobile video QoE through better adaptation by video clients.

References

  1. Akamai. 2016. dash.js. https://github.com/Dash-Industry-Forum/dash.js/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Android: Low RAM Configuration. https://source.android.com/devices/tech/perf/low-ram.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bali in 8k ULTRA HD HDR - Paradise of Asia (60 FPS). https://youtu.be/fajeL728XG8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarissa Ward presses Taliban fighter on treatment of women. https://youtu.be/RIw7smlkIaU.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. ComponentCallbacks2,. https://tinyurl.com/97kc9pu5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Devices used to watch online video worldwide as of August 2019. https://www.statista.com/statistics/784351/online-video-devices/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Distribution of worldwide YouTube viewing time as of 2nd quarter 2021, by device. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1173543/youtube-viewing-time-share-device/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Dubai Flow Motion in 4K - A Rob Whitworth Film. https://youtu.be/BLL-kW_TpT4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Dumpsys. https://developer.android.com/studio/command-line/dumpsys.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. ExoPlayer. https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/media/exoplayer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. ExoPlayer: Flexible media playback for Android (Google I/O '17). https://youtu.be/jAZn-J1I8Eg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Logcat command-line tool. https://developer.android.com/studio/command-line/logcat.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Memory allocation among processes. https://developer.android.com/topic/performance/memory-management.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Mobile Operating System Market Share Worldwide. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. NIGMA vs OG - TI CHAMPIONS GAME - DPC EU DREAMLEAGUE S14 DOTA 2. https://youtu.be/Ek-gfQo6ryE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Novak Djokovic vs Denis Shapovalov (4K 60FPS) MATCH HIGHLIGHTS Court Level View 2021 ATP CUP. https://youtu.be/lnoba3DZQZw.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Overview of memory management. https://developer.android.com/topic/performance/memory-overview.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Package visibility filtering on Android. https://developer.android.com/training/package-visibility.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Perfetto. https://perfetto.dev/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Recommended YouTube Upload Encode Settings. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en#zippy=%2Cbitrate.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Supported media formats. https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/media/mediaformats.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Understanding Android Memory Usage (Google 1/O'18). https://tinyurl.com/33yk98s7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Z. Akhtar, Y. Li, R. Govindan, E. Halepovic, S. Hao, Y. Liu, and S. Sen. Avic: A cache for adaptive bitrate video. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments And Technologies, CoNEXT '19, page 305--317, New York, NY, USA, 2019. Association for Computing Machinery.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Z. Akhtar, Y. S. Nam, R. Govindan, S. Rao, J. Chen, E. Katz-Bassett, B. Ribeiro, J. Zhan, and H. Zhang. Oboe: Auto-tuning video abr algorithms to network conditions. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication, SIGCOMM '18, page 44--58, New York, NY, USA, 2018. Association for Computing Machinery.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. Dasari, S. Vargas, A. Bhattacharya, A. Balasubramanian, S. R. Das, and M. Ferdman. Impact of device performance on mobile internet qoe. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018, IMC '18, pages 1--7, New York, NY, USA, 2018. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. M. Ghasemi, P. Kanuparthy, A. Mansy, T. Benson, and J. Rexford. Performance characterization of a commercial video streaming service. In Proceedings of the 2016 Internet Measurement Conference, IMC '16, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. T.-Y. Huang, R. Johari, N. McKeown, M. Trunnell, and M. Watson. A buffer-based approach to rate adaptation: Evidence from a large video streaming service. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on SIGCOMM, SIGCOMM '14, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. A. V. Katsenou, J. Sole, and D. R. Bull. Content-gnostic bitrate ladder prediction for adaptive video streaming. In 2019 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS), 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. A. V. Katsenou, J. Sole, and D. R. Bull. Efficient bitrate ladder construction for content-optimized adaptive video streaming. 2021.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Y. Liang, J. Li, R. Ausavarungnirun, R. Pan, L. Shi, T.-W. Kuo, and C. J. Xue. Acclaim: Adaptive memory reclaim to improve user experience in android systems. In 2020 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 20), pages 897--910. USENIX Association, July 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Y. Liang, Q. Li, and C. J. Xue. Mismatched memory management of android smartphones. In 11th USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Storage and File Systems (HotStorage 19), Renton, WA, July 2019. USENIX Association.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. H. Mao, R. Netravali, and M. Alizadeh. Neural adaptive video streaming with pensieve. In Proceedings of the Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication, SIGCOMM '17, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. U. Naseer, T. A. Benson, and R. Netravali. Webmedic: Disentangling the memory-functionality tension for the next billion mobile web users. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, HotMobile '21, page 71--77, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. I. A. Qazi, Z. A. Qazi, T. A. Benson, G. Murtaza, E. Latif, A. Manan, and A. Tariq. Mobile web browsing under memory pressure. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 50(4):35--48, Oct. 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. K. Spiteri, R. Urgaonkar, and R. K. Sitaraman. Bola: Near-optimal bitrate adaptation for online videos. In IEEE INFOCOM 2016 - The 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Y. Sun, X. Yin, J. Jiang, V. Sekar, F. Lin, N. Wang, T. Liu, and B. Sinopoli. Cs2p: Improving video bitrate selection and adaptation with data-driven throughput prediction. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGCOMM Conference, SIGCOMM '16, pages 272--285, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. X. Yin, A. Jindal, V. Sekar, and B. Sinopoli. 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, SIGCOMM '15, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Coal not diamonds: how memory pressure falters mobile video QoE

        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
          CoNEXT '22: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies
          November 2022
          431 pages
          ISBN:9781450395083
          DOI:10.1145/3555050

          Copyright © 2022 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: 30 November 2022

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CoNEXT '22 Paper Acceptance Rate28of151submissions,19%Overall Acceptance Rate198of789submissions,25%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader