{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2024,1,10]],"date-time":"2024-01-10T00:05:24Z","timestamp":1704845124592},"reference-count":17,"publisher":"Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)","issue":"2","content-domain":{"domain":["dl.acm.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev."],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2011,4,15]]},"abstract":"This paper presents the results of an investigation into the application flow control technique utilised by YouTube. We reveal and describe the basic properties of YouTube application flow control, which we term block sending, and show that it is widely used by YouTube servers. We also examine how the block sending algorithm interacts with the flow control provided by TCP and reveal that the block sending approach was responsible for over 40% of packet loss events in YouTube flows in a residential DSL dataset and the retransmission of over 1% of all YouTube data sent after the application flow control began. We conclude by suggesting that changing YouTube block sending to be less bursty would improve the performance and reduce the bandwidth usage of YouTube video streams.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1145\/1971162.1971166","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2011,4,19]],"date-time":"2011-04-19T12:45:10Z","timestamp":1303217110000},"page":"24-30","update-policy":"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1145\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":72,"title":["Application flow control in YouTube video streams"],"prefix":"10.1145","volume":"41","author":[{"given":"Shane","family":"Alcock","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand"}]},{"given":"Richard","family":"Nelson","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand"}]}],"member":"320","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2011,4,15]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_1_1_1","unstructured":"YouTube http:\/\/www.youtube.com. YouTube http:\/\/www.youtube.com."},{"key":"e_1_2_1_2_1","unstructured":"Alexa Top 500 Global Sites http:\/\/www.alexa.com\/topsites. Alexa Top 500 Global Sites http:\/\/www.alexa.com\/topsites."},{"key":"e_1_2_1_3_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1145\/1644893.1644904"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_4_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1145\/1298306.1298309"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_5_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.comnet.2008.09.022"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_6_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"M. Allman V. Paxson and E. Blanton \"RFC 5681 - TCP Congestion Control \" September 2009. M. Allman V. Paxson and E. Blanton \"RFC 5681 - TCP Congestion Control \" September 2009.","DOI":"10.17487\/rfc5681"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_7_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"J. Postel RFC 793 - Transmission Control Protocol September 1981. J. Postel RFC 793 - Transmission Control Protocol September 1981.","DOI":"10.17487\/rfc0793"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_8_1","unstructured":"WAND Network Research Group WITS http:\/\/www.wand.net.nz\/wits\/. WAND Network Research Group WITS http:\/\/www.wand.net.nz\/wits\/."},{"key":"e_1_2_1_9_1","unstructured":"KAREN\n\n \n : Kiwi Advanced Research and Education Network http:\/\/karen.net.nz\/home\/. KAREN: Kiwi Advanced Research and Education Network http:\/\/karen.net.nz\/home\/."},{"key":"e_1_2_1_10_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-12365-8_2"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_11_1","unstructured":"WAND Network Research Group libtcpcsm http:\/\/research.wand.net.nz\/software\/tcpcsm.php. WAND Network Research Group libtcpcsm http:\/\/research.wand.net.nz\/software\/tcpcsm.php."},{"key":"e_1_2_1_12_1","unstructured":"S. Ostermann \"tcptrace \" http:\/\/www.tcptrace.org\/. S. Ostermann \"tcptrace \" http:\/\/www.tcptrace.org\/."},{"key":"e_1_2_1_13_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1145\/1165389.945450"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_14_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"M. Handley J. Padhye and S. Floyd \"RFC 2861 - TCP Congestion Window Validation \" June 2000. M. Handley J. Padhye and S. Floyd \"RFC 2861 - TCP Congestion Window Validation \" June 2000.","DOI":"10.17487\/rfc2861"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_15_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"X. Cheng C. Dale and J. Liu \"Statistics and Social Network of YouTube Videos \" in Proc. of IEEE IWQoS 2008. X. Cheng C. Dale and J. Liu \"Statistics and Social Network of YouTube Videos \" in Proc. of IEEE IWQoS 2008.","DOI":"10.1109\/IWQOS.2008.32"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_16_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1145\/1298306.1298310"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_17_1","unstructured":"L. Plissonneau T. En-Najjary and G. Urvoy-Keller \"Revisiting Web Traffic from a DSL Provider Perspective: the Case of YouTube \" in Proc. of the 19th ITC Specialist Seminar 2008. L. Plissonneau T. En-Najjary and G. Urvoy-Keller \"Revisiting Web Traffic from a DSL Provider Perspective: the Case of YouTube \" in Proc. of the 19th ITC Specialist Seminar 2008."}],"container-title":["ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/pdf\/10.1145\/1971162.1971166","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2022,12,29]],"date-time":"2022-12-29T18:09:28Z","timestamp":1672337368000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/10.1145\/1971162.1971166"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2011,4,15]]},"references-count":17,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2011,4,15]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1145\/1971162.1971166"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/1971162.1971166","relation":{},"ISSN":["0146-4833"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0146-4833","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2011,4,15]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2011-04-15","order":2,"name":"published","label":"Published","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}