Application-layer Bandwidth Allocation Algorithm for Service
Differentiation in Hybrid Content Distribution Network
Hai Jiang1, 3, Haibin Zhai1, 3, Albert K. Wong2, Jun Li1, Zhongcheng Li1
1
Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
2
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
3
Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
{jianghai, zhaihaibin}@ict.ac.cn, eealbert@ust.hk, {lijun, zcli}@ict.ac.cn
Abstract—Hybrid content distribution network (HCDN) makes
use of the highly complementary advantages of conventional
CDN (content distribution network) and pure P2P (peer-to-
peer). In HCDN, clients can concurrently retrieve content from
both CDN and P2P networks. In this paper, service
differentiation is formulated as a constraint optimization
problem, in which two additional factors are taken into
consideration. With the convex optimization theory, two
bandwidth allocation algorithms, HBAA-P for source peer and
HBAA-S for surrogate server, are proposed and proved for
service differentiation in the hybrid architecture. Some
experimental results are illustrated to make sense of the
performance features of our approaches.
Keywords – service differentiation; bandwidth allocation
algorithm; peer-to-peer network; content distribution network.
I. INTRODUCTION
A key challenge for Internet infrastructure has been the
need to deliver increasingly large volume content to a rapidly
growing user population. CDN and P2P have been playing
important roles in addressing this challenge. Making use of
the highly complementary advantages of conventional CDN
and pure P2P, the hybrid content distribution network
(HCDN) [1][2][3] has been proposed to both reduce the
deployment cost and provide QoS (quality of service)
assurance. In HCDN, a two-level hierarchical architecture is
constructed, and clients can concurrently retrieve content
from both CDN and P2P networks.
The aim of service differentiation is to provide different
quality for users with different priorities. Although many
mechanisms [4] have been proposed to support differentiated
service in network layer, very few have been deployed in
current Internet. Recently, there has been a growing interest
in academic and commercial environments for providing
differentiated service in application layer. In this paper, we
propose a bandwidth allocation algorithm motivated by the
objective of supporting service differentiation in HCDN
network.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In
section II, a summary of related works is provided. In section
III, the model of HCDN is briefly introduced as preliminary
work. In section IV, our proposed bandwidth allocation
algorithm is described in detail. In section V, we show the
experimental results of our approach. Section VI provides
the conclusions.
II. RELATED WORK
In our previous work, we presented the HCDN hybrid
architecture in [1][5] and evaluated its performance in [6].
Similar works have also been done by Skevik et al in [2],
Huang et al in [3], Xu et al in [7] and Cahill et al in [8]. The
main idea of these works is to construct a hybrid architecture
integrating the CDN and P2P in order to improve the content
distribution efficiency. To the best of our knowledge, there
are little works focusing on service differentiation in HCDN
network, although some preliminary works have been done
on service differentiation in pure peer-to-peer network.
An application-layer bandwidth allocation algorithm is
used to determine how a source node N s distributes its
bandwidth Bs to the competing nodes N i (1 ≤ i ≤ n) . Some
existing algorithms are summarized in [9]. A simple
mechanism is even sharing, in which each competing node
will be assigned bandwidth xi :
Bs
xi = 1≤ i ≤ n (1)
n
In addition to provide no service differentiation among
competing nodes, this simple algorithm may cause
significant bandwidth wastage. For example, if the download
bandwidth of a competing node is lower than its assigned
bandwidth, the over-assigned resource will be wasted. To
overcome the bandwidth wastage problem, a mechanism,
called resource bidding, is proposed, in which every
competing node sends a bidding message periodically to
source node. Let the bidding bandwidth be bi . The assigned
bandwidth is denoted as:
⎧ i −1
⎫
⎪ Bs − ∑ x j ⎪
⎪ j =1 ⎪
xi = min ⎨bi , 　 ⎬ 1≤ i ≤ n (2)
⎪ n − i + 1 ⎪
⎪⎩ ⎪⎭
To take into consideration the priority Pi of competing node
i , the assigned bandwidth can be further formulated as
follows.
1
 ⎧ ⎛ i −1 ⎞⎫
⎪ Pi ⋅ ⎜⎜ Bs − ∑ x j ⎟⎟ ⎪
⎪ ⎠⎪
xi = min ⎨bi , 　 ⎝ n
j =1
⎬ 1≤ i ≤ n (3)
⎪ ∑ Pj ⎪
⎪ j =i ⎪
⎩ ⎭
However, these mechanisms do not take the competing
nodes’ satisfaction into account. The degree of satisfaction
xi
for node i can be denoted as . To consider both the
bi
index data ■ origin server ● surrogate ○ client
perceived utilities of competing nodes and their priorities,
the resource bidding with priority and utility is presented as Fig.1. Network model of HCDN
the following constraint optimization:
n n
xi
max ∑ [ Pi ⋅ log( + 1)] s.t. ∑ xi ≤ B s , xi ∈ [0, bi ]∀i (4)
i =1 bi i =1 IV. BANDWIDTH ALLOCATION ALGORITHM FOR SERVICE
Some other approaches have also been studied. In [10], DIFFERENTIATION IN HCDN
Wu et al propose an optimal bandwidth allocation algorithm
for service differentiation across multiple peer-to-peer A. Overview
sessions that maximize the sessions’ priority-based utilities. In HCDN, competing clients can concurrently retrieve
In [11], Kumar et al implement file distribution with content from source peers and surrogate servers. The model
application-level differentiated service in a peer-assisted file of bandwidth allocation is shown in Fig.2. Our approach is
distribution system. The main idea is to leverage the divided into two parts: HBAA-P (bandwidth allocation
bandwidth capacity of lower class nodes to provide better algorithm on peer) and HBAA-S (bandwidth allocation
service to higher class nodes. algorithm on server). In addition to the priority Pi and
In this paper, we focus on bandwidth allocation for
service differentiation in the HCDN hybrid architecture. Our bidding value bi , we introduce parameter qi as the quality
main contribution includes: (a) two algorithms, HBAA-P for factor of link between the source peer and client i in
source peer and HBAA-S for surrogate server, are proposed HBAA-P, and parameter D j as the demand factor of file j
and proved for bandwidth allocation; (b) the experimental in HBAA-S.
results show the performance features of our approaches.
x1

III. PRELIMINARY: MODEL OF HYBRID CONTENT x2

DISTRIBUTION NETWORK x1
P1 , b1 , q1

The architecture of HCDN [3][5], can be abstracted to a

two-level hierarchical hybrid model as shown in Fig.1. The x1′ P1 , b1 , D1 P2 , b2 , q2 x2
process of content delivery is divided into two stages: CDN-
level distribution and P2P-level distribution. In the backbone
network, the CDN-level system is deployed and content is x2′ P2 , b2 , D2
strategically disseminated to surrogates. With content pushed x1′
towards the network edges, client-perceived latency can be
reduced. P2P technology can also be used in CDN systems to x2′
allow the surrogates to exchange content each other,
reducing the overload of origin servers. In the access
Fig.2. Competing Model of Bandwidth Allocation in HCDN
network, P2P with centralized indexing is introduced in our
HCDN so that the clients located to the same surrogate can
exchange content with each other. So, in this scheme, clients
can concurrently retrieve content from the CDN surrogates B. Bandwidth Allocation Algorithm on Peers
and other P2P peers. To reflect quality of end-to-end link, the factor qi is
HCDN makes use of the complementary advantages in
introduced in HBAA-P algorithm. This parameter can be
CDN and P2P. Compared to the pure CDN architecture,
determined by some metrics, such as latency, stability of
HCDN can reduce the overload of surrogates; therefore, the
transmission and available link capacity [12]. With this
infrastructure cost can be significantly reduced as fewer
consideration, the bandwidth wastage will be reduced. We
surrogates need to be deployed. Compared to the pure P2P
architecture, HCDN can improve the quality of service and let the total uploading bandwidth of source peer be B p . The
avoid the low performance when there are insufficient peers bandwidth allocation on peer is further formulated as
in system. following constraint optimization:

2
 n
xi when 0 < xi* < bi , we have μi* = 0 from eq. (13), β i* = 0 from
max ∑ [ Pi ⋅ log( qi ⋅ + 1)]
i =1 bi Pi ⋅ qi P ⋅q P ⋅q P b
(5) eq. (14), and < λ * = * i i < i i , xi* = i* − i
N
bi (1 + qi ) xi ⋅ qi + bi bi λ qi
s.t. ∑ xi ≤ B p , xi ∈ [0, bi ] ∀i
i =1 from eq. (11). Therefore, the optimal solution xi* described
With the objective function in (5), the greater factor qi of
in theorem 1 can be achieved in corresponding three cases.
a peer, the higher bandwidth will be allocated for it. □
Theorem 1. The above constraint optimization (5) can be Based on theorem 1, an optimal solution of convex
solved as a convex optimization problem. An optimal problem can be reached by the optimal value of λ * . As
solution is as follows: shown in Table.1, the algorithm HBAA-P is used to resolve
⎧ Pi ⋅ qi the problem according to the KKT conditions.
⎪bi if λ * ≤
⎪ bi (1 + qi ) Table.1. Bandwidth Allocation Algorithm on Peer
⎪⎪ P ⋅q
xi = ⎨0
*
if λ * ≥ i i (6) Algorithm HBAA-P()
⎪ bi
⎪P b Pi ⋅ qi P ⋅q
n
G
⎪ i* − i if < λ* < i i 1. if ( ∑ bi < B p ) { xi = bi , ∀i ; return x ;}
*

⎪⎩ λ qi bi (1 + qi ) bi i =1

Pi ⋅ qi Pi ⋅ qi
where λ * is the optimal value of Lagrangian multiplier λ 2. Ui = , Li = , l=0;
for the first constraint of problem (5). bi bi (1 + qi )
3. Z = {U i } + { Li } ; // Z is in non-increasing order
Proof: To the optimization problem (5), the objective
function is a non-decreasing and concave function of 4. for ( each l <= 2n ){
5. λ = Zl ;
variable xi . This problem is equivalent to a convex G
6. Update_x( λ ); // according to eq. (6), calculate x
optimization with standard form as
n 7. B p = B p − bk ; // the node k is allocated with bk
min − ∑ [ Pi ⋅ log(qi ⋅ xi + bi )] (7) l
G
n
i =1
8. if ( ∑ xi == Bp ) return x ;
i =1
s.t. Β p − ∑ xi ≥ 0 (8) l
i =1
bi − xi ≥ 0 ∀i (9)
9. if ( ∑ xi < B p && l=2n ) { λ * = 0 ; break;}
i =1

xi ≥ 0 ∀i (10) l
10. if ( ∑ xi > B p ){
Let λ * , μi* and β i* be the optimal values of Lagrangian i =1

multipliers λ , μi and β i associated with the corresponding 11. // find λ * between Z l −1 and Z l
constraints (8), (9) and (10), respectively. We also assume 12. for (each node m where U m ≥ Z l −1 and Lm ≤ Z l )
G
x = [ x1* , x2* , ... , xn* ] is an optimal solution to this problem. So, bm
13. { Sum1 + = pm ; Sum2 + = ;}
we can obtain the KKT conditions [13] for this convex qm
problem: Sum1 ;
14. λ* =
Sum2 + B p
n
∑ xi *
≤ B p , xi ≤ bi
*
∀i , xi ≥ 0 ∀i
*

15. break;
i =1

Pi ⋅ qi n n 16. }
= λ * + ∑ μi* − ∑ βi* ∀i (11) 17. }
xi ⋅ qi + bi
*
i =1 i =1
18. Update_x( λ * );
⎛ N
⎞ G
λ ⎜ B p − ∑ xi* ⎟ = 0
*
(12) 19. return x ;
⎝ i =1 ⎠
In algorithm HBAA-P, if there is no congestion, the
μi (bi − xi ) = 0 ∀i
* *
(13)
bandwidth allocated for each node is equal to its bidding
β i* xi* = 0 ∀i (14) value (line 1). Initialize the upper and lower limits according
Three cases can be got: when x = bi , we have βi = 0 from * * theorem 1, and put them into array Z in non-increasing
order (line 2~3). From line 4 to 17, we adjust the λ to use up
i

Pi ⋅ qi n
P ⋅q P ⋅q
eq. (14), and λ * = − ∑ μi * ≤ * i i = i i bandwidth B p .
xi ⋅ qi + bi i =1
*
xi ⋅ qi + bi bi (1 + qi )
from eq. (11); when xi* = 0 , we have μi* = 0 from eq. (13),
Pi ⋅ qi n
P ⋅q P ⋅q C. Bandwidth Allocation Algorithm on Servers
and λ * = + ∑ β i* ≥ * i i = i i from eq. (11);
xi ⋅ qi + bi i =1
*
xi ⋅ qi + bi bi In HCDN, to improve the distribution efficiency, the
surrogate server’s capability should be more consumed by

3
the files which have more requests and scarce peers. To take
the demand degree into consideration, we denote the demand In the algorithm HBAA-S, ∑ xi , j * − bi are dual
j :( i , j )∈S
factor of file j as D j = R j H j (where R j is the number of
1
requests for file j , and H j is the health index [14] which subgradients, θ ( k ) = is step size satisfies the
(1 + k ) ⋅ θ
denotes the number of peers sharing file j in P2P-level following condition:
distribution). Let S denotes the set of pairs (i, j ) that means ∞

peer i request file j . Assume xi , j is the bandwidth allocated

θ (k ) > 0 , lim k →∞ θ (k ) = 0 , and ∑θ (k ) = ∞
k =1

for pair (i, j ) . The bandwidth allocation on surrogate server is Table.3. The Subalgorithm of HBAA-S
formulated as following constraint optimization:
xi , j HBAA-S Subalgorithm ()
max ∑ [ Pi ⋅ log( D j ⋅
bi
+ 1)]
( i , j )∈S n
G
1. if ( ∑ bi < Bs ) { xi = bi ∀i ; return x ;}
*

s.t. ∑ xi , j ≤ Bs
(15)
i =1
2. // the elements of S are in non-increasing order
( i , j )∈S
for ( each (i, j ) ∈ S ) {
∑ xi , j ≤ bi ∀i
j :( i , j )∈S Pi ⋅ D j
3. λ= − μi ;
xi , j ≥ 0 ∀(i, j ) ∈ S bi
We consider the equivalent standard minimization form G
4. Update_x( λ ); / /according to eq. (19), calculate x using λ
of the objective function in (15):
G
min − ∑ [ Pi ⋅ log( D j ⋅ xi , j + bi )] (16)
5. if ( ∑ xi , j == Bs ) return x ;
( i , j )∈S
( i , j )∈S

Associating Lagrangian multipliers μi with the second 6. if ( ∑ xi , j < Bs && (i,j) is the end) { λ * = 0 ; break;}
( i , j )∈S
constraint in (15) and using Lagrangian relaxation, the
objective function is transformed to:
n
7. if ( ∑ xi , j > Bs ) {
∑ [( Pi ⋅ log( D j ⋅ xi , j + bi ) − μi xi , j )] − ∑ μibi
( i , j )∈S
− (17)
( i , j )∈S i =1

Then, we obtain the Lagrangian dual as follows:

8. find λ in [ λ prev , λ ] satisfying
*
∑ xi , j == Bs
( i , j )∈S
max L( μ )
9. Update_x( λ * );
where G
10. return x ;
n
L( μ ) = min − ∑ [ Pi ⋅ log( D j ⋅ xi , j + bi ) − μi xi , j ] − ∑ μibi 11.
12.
}
λ prev = λ ;
( i , j )∈S i =1

13. }
s.t. Β s − ∑ xi , j ≥ 0 (18)
14. Update_x( λ * );
( i , j )∈S
G
xi , j ≥ 0 , ∀(i, j ) ∈ S 15. return x ;

So, to solve this dual problem using subgradient

algorithm [15], HBAA-S is designed and summarized as Theorem 2. An optimal solution to the Lagrangian
shown in Table.2. subproblem (18) can be obtained as follows:
Table.2. Bandwidth Allocation Algorithm on Server ⎧ Pi ⋅ Dj
⎪0 if λ * ≥ − μi
⎪ bi
Algorithm HBAA-S() xi , j * = ⎨ (19)
⎪ Pi − bi Pi ⋅ Dj
1. Choose initial multipliers μi (0) = 0 ∀i and let k=0; if λ <*
− μi
⎪ λ * + μi D j bi
⎩
2. while ( μi ( K + 1) − μi ( K ) < ε ) {
where λ * is the optimal value of Lagrangian multiplier λ
3. solve Lagrangian subproblem (18) and derive xi , j * from for the first constraint of problem (18).
HBAA-S subalgorithm;
1
Proof: Let β i , j * be the optimal values of Lagrangian
4. μi ( K + 1) = max( 0, μi ( K ) + ( ∑ xi, j* − bi ) ) ∀i ;
(1 + k) ⋅θ j:(i, j )∈S multipliers β i , j associated with the second constraint in
problem (18). We can obtain KKT conditions for the convex
5. θ= ∑ ( ∑ xi , j * − bi ) 2 ; problem as follows:
i :( i , j )∈S j :( i , j )∈S

6. k++; ∑ xi , j ∗ ≤ Bs
7. } ( i , j )∈S

λ ∗ ≥ 0, xi , j ∗ ≥ 0, βi , j * ≥ 0 ∀(i, j ) ∈ S

4
 Pi ⋅ Dj will be allocated for it. It also can be seen that the smaller
∗
− μi = λ * − β i , j* ∀(i, j ) ∈ S (20) bidding value will cause higher satisfaction.
xi , j ⋅ D j + bi
Then, to consider the quality of link, we change the
λ * ( Bs − ∑ xi , j ∗ ) = 0 (21) parameter q from [1, 1, 1, 1, 1] to [2, 3, 4, 7, 10]. As shown
in Fig.3 (b), the greater q will result in higher allocated
( i , j )∈S

β i , j * ⋅ xi , j ∗ = 0, ∀(i, j ) ∈ S (22) bandwidth. Fox example, the allocated bandwidths of nodes

Two cases can be got: when xi , j > 0 , we have βi , j = 0 from
Pi ⋅ Dj
(22), and λ * = − μi <
xi , j * ⋅ D j + bi
Pi ⋅ Dj
xi , j* = 0 , we have λ * ≥
bi
optimal solution xi , j * described in theorem 2 can be achieved
in corresponding two cases.
□ In this simulation, there are five files {A, B, C, D, E}
Based on theorem 2, the pseudo-code of HBAA-S
subalgorithm is shown in Talbe.3. If there is no congestion,
the bandwidth allocated for each node is equal to its bidding
value (line 1). Assume that the elements of S are in non-
increasing order. From line 2~12, we adjust λ to use up Bs
by searching the elements in S.
V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULT
In this section, we present experimental results to provide
performance analysis and evaluation. Let b = [b1 , b2 , ... , bn ] ,
P = [ P1 , P2 , ... , Pn ] , q = [ q1 , q2 , ... , qn ] for all competing nodes
N = [ N1 , N 2 , ... , N n ] , and D = [ D1 , D2 , ... , Dm ] for all requested
files F = [ F1 , F2 , ... , Fm ] .
A. On the algorithm HBAA-P
In this simulation, there are five competing nodes with
priorities P=[5, 4, 3, 2, 1] and bidding values b=[0.6, 0.5, 0.4,
0.25, 0.1] (Mbps). The source peer’s bandwidth is Bp=1
Mbps. Let q=[1, 1, 1, 1, 1] which is same case of the
mechanism formulated in eq. (4). We assume the nodes join
at time 5, 15, 25, 35, 45 (sec), respectively. As shown in
Fig.3 (a), the higher priority a node is, the more bandwidth
N5 and N4 are increased but that of node N1 is reduced.
* *
Next, to study the effect of dynamic join/leave of
Pi ⋅ Dj competing nodes, assume their arrival time is 30, 10, 20, 0,
− μi from (20); when 30 (sec) respectively, and the corresponding departure time
bi
is 50, 40, 60, 50, 60 (sec). As shown in Fig.3 (c), HBAA-P
can fully utilize the provided bandwidth. This case means
− μi from (20). Therefore, the
that the bandwidth allocation algorithm is adaptive to
dynamic network.
B. On the algorithm HBAA-S
with demand factor D=[2, 3, 4, 7, 10]. Let the total number
of competing nodes varies from 150 to 600. We uniformly
choose bi from the range of 32~64 Kbps and Pi from the
range 1~5. With 40 times experiments, the average result
will be presented.
To understand the convergence speed of the algorithm
HBAA-S, we vary the number of iterations from 2 to 50. As
shown in Fig.4, when the number of iterations is greater than
10, our algorithm is very close to the optimal solution. This
means that the HBAA-P performs well on the speed of
convergence.
In Fig.5 (a), the bandwidth allocated for different classes
of competing nodes is shown. The nodes with higher priority
are allocated more bandwidth proportionally. With the
increase of the number of competing nodes, the average
bandwidth will be decreased.
As shown in Fig.5 (b), the higher demand factor a file has,
the more bandwidth is allocated. For example, the bandwidth
allocated for file E with D5=10 is much more than that of file
A with D1=2. It also can be seen that, when the number of
competing nodes increases, much more bandwidth will be
allocated for the file with high demand factor.

0.6
N1
0.6 N1 N1 0.5
N2
N2 N2
N3
N3 N3
0.5 0.5 N4
N4 N4
0.4 N5
Allocated bandwidth(Mbps)
Allocated bandwidth(Mbps)
Allocated bandwidth(Mbps)

N5 N5

0.4 0.4
0.3

0.3 0.3

0.2
0.2 0.2

0.1
0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0 0.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
time(sec) time(sec) time(sec)

(a). q=[1, 1, 1, 1, 1] (b). q=[2, 3, 4, 7, 10] (c). Dynamic join/leave

Fig.3. Instantaneous bandwidth allocations for HBAA-P

5
 90 70

2 iterations Priority 1 FileA

80 2100 FileB
10 iterations 60 Priority 2

Average allocated bandwidth per priority

20 iterations FileC
Priority 3

Average allocated bandwidth per file

70 1800 FileD
50 iterations Priority 4
FileE
Allocated Bandwidth(Kbps)

Optimal solution 50 Priority 5

60
1500
40
50
1200
40 30
900
30
20
600
20
10
10 300

0
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Index of the competing node Number of total requesting nodes Number of total requesting nodes
(a). With different priorities (b). With different demand factors
Fig.4. Convergence speed of HBAA-S Fig.5. Bandwidth allocation for HBAA-S

of the factors which are taken into account in service

C. Effects of the qi and Dj on Satisfaction Degree differentiation.
To investigate the effect of qi and D j , let the competing
nodes have the same priority ( Pi = 1 ) and biding values
REFERENCES
( bp = 300 Kbps for HBAA-P, bs = 100 Kbps for HBAA-S) .
[1] Hai Jiang, Jun Li, Zhongcheng Li, et al. “Efficient hierarchical
There are four classes (C1, C2, C3, and C4) of competing content distribution using P2P technology,” The IEEE International
nodes in this experiment. Let B p = 1 (Mbps), Bs = 10 (Mbps), Conference on Networks (ICON’08). Dec. 2008.
[2] K. Skevik, V. Goebel, T. Plagemann. “Design of a hybrid cdn,” in:
q=[2, 10, 2, 10] and D=[2, 2, 10, 10]. We also assume that MIPS'04: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on
there are 2 and 50 competing nodes for each class for Multimedia Interactive Protocols and Systems, Nov. 2004.
HBAA-P and HBAA-S, respectively. As shown in Fig.6, [3] C. Huang, A. Wang, J. Li, et al. “Understanding Hybrid CDN-P2P:
there are four cases: (a) for NQND (where q=[1, 1, 1, 1] and Why Limelight Needs its Own Red Swoosh,” Proc. 18th International
D=[1, 1, 1, 1]), the allocation is close to even sharing; (b) for Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital
YQND (where q=[2, 10, 2, 10] and D=[1, 1, 1, 1]), the Audio and Video (NOSSDAV'08), May 2008.
satisfaction degree of C2 and C4 is higher than that of C1 [4] S. Blake, D. Black, M. Carlson, et al. “An Architcture for
Differentiated Services, ” RFC2475, Oct. 1998.
and C3; (c) for NQYD (where q=[1, 1, 1, 1] and D=[2, 2, 10,
[5] Hai Jiang, Jun Li, Zhongcheng Li. “Hybrid content distribution
10]), the satisfaction degree of N1 and N3 is higher than that network and its performance modeling,” Chinese journal of computer.
of C2 and C4; (d) for YQYD (where q=[2, 10, 2, 10] and Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 473-482, Mar. 2009.
D=[2, 2, 10, 10]), the satisfaction degree of C4 is much [6] Hai Jiang, Jun Li, Zhongcheng Li, et al. “Performance Evaluation of
higher than that of C1. Content Distribution in Hybrid CDN-P2P Network”. The
0.7
International Conference on Future Generation Communication and
C1
0.6
C2 Networking (FGCN'08). Dec. 2008.
C3
C4 [7] Dongyan Xu, Sunil Suresh Kulkarni. “Analysis of a CDN-P2P hybrid
Satisfaction degree(percent)

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
NQND
Fig.6. Effects of the qi and Dj on Satisfaction Degree
VI. CONCLUSION
In this article, to achieve service differentiation in HCDN
hybrid architecture, we propose a bandwidth allocation
algorithm composed of HBAA-P and HBAA-S. In our
approaches, the quality factor of link and the demand factor
of file are introduced in HBAA-P and HBAA-S, respectively.
With convex optimization theory, the proof and derivation of
the approaches are presented. The experimental results show
that the proposed algorithms have high speed of convergence
and can adapt to dynamic network. We also show the effect
architecture for cost-effective streaming media distribution,”
Multime-dia Systems, pp. 383-399, Mar. 2006.
[8] Adrian J. Cahill, Cormac J. Sreenan. “An efficient CDN placement
algorithm for the delivery of high-quality TV content,” the 12th
annual ACM international conference on Multimedia, New York, NY,
USA , 2004.
[9] R.T.B. Ma, S.C.M. Lee, J.C.S. Lui, and D.K.Y. Yau, “Incentive and
Service Differentiation in P2P networks: A Game theoretic approach”,
YQND NQYD YQYD IEEE/ACM Trans Networking, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 978-991, Oct. 2006.
[10] C.Wu, B.Li, “Diverse: Application-Layer Service Differentiation in
Peer-to-Peer Communications”, IEEE Joutnal On Selected Areas In
Communications, Vol. 25, No. 1, pages 222-234, 2007.
[11] Rakesh Kumar, Keith Ross, “Optimal Peer-Assisted File Distribution:
Single and Multi-Class Problems”, Proceedings of INFOCOM, 2005.
[12] Cheng-Fu Chou, Ling-Jyh Chen, and Wen-Hui Chiang, “Integrity-
aware Bandwidth Guarding Approach in P2P Networks”, IFIP
Networking 2007, Atlanta, Georgia, USA,2007.
[13] S.Boyd, “Convex Optimization”, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[14] Y. Huang, T. T. J. Fu, D. M. Chiu, J. C. S. Lui, and C. Huang,
“Challenges, design and analysis of a large-scale p2p vod systems”,
in ACM SIGCOMM, 2008.
[15] N. Z. Shor, “Minimization Methods for Non-Differentiable
Functions”, Springer-Verlag, 1985.