Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Low latency playback does not accurately estimate throughput, uses too high quality level #3538

Open
5 tasks done
sandersaares opened this issue Feb 15, 2021 · 8 comments
Open
5 tasks done
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@sandersaares
Copy link
Member

sandersaares commented Feb 15, 2021

Environment
Steps to reproduce
  1. Start playback in reference player with settings:
    • low-latency mode: yes
    • initial live delay: 1
    • ABR algorithm: throughput or BOLA or L2A or LoL+
  2. Wait 30 seconds.
Observed behavior: general

For the L2A/LoL algorithms, player estimates throughput at 2000+ Kbps, which is far above server-enforced limit of 1500 Kbps. Choice of throughput estimation method does not appear to make any difference as far as I can tell.

For the BOLA/throughput algorithms, quality level is just stuck at minimum all the time. I assume these are not tuned for low-latency but include them here for completeness - what I care about is low latency behavior here.

Observed behavior: L2A ABR

image

With L2A ABR algorithm: player constantly stalls. Player tries to use 1500 Kbps quality level, which does not fit within 1500 Kbps budget (when added audio + overheads).

Observed behavior: LoL+ ABR

image

With LoL+ ABR algorithm: player constantly speeds up and slows down as it is unable to maintain buffer level. Player often tries to use 1500 Kbps quality level and occasionally drops down briefly.

Observed behavior: Throughput ABR

image

With "throughput" ABR algorithm: player is stuck on minimum quality level (250 kbps).

Observed behavior: BOLA ABR

image

With BOLA ABR algorithm: player is stuck on minimum quality level (250 kbps).

Expected behavior

Maintain stable 1000 Kbps quality level.

image

(Screenshot with manually selected quality level)

@mlasak
Copy link
Contributor

mlasak commented Mar 30, 2021

Thanks @sandersaares for raising this issue. We have been able to reproduce, identified the root for this problem and are working on a solution to this.

@mlasak
Copy link
Contributor

mlasak commented Apr 26, 2021

Hi @sandersaares, with out new throughput measurement method the low latency streaming looks like this
image
Will raise a PR for review, after GUI part for selecting the new method is added.

@akouSDN
Copy link
Contributor

akouSDN commented Jun 11, 2021

Thanks for reporting this issue in LoL+ bandwidth measurements. PR 3663 addresses this issue

@dsilhavy dsilhavy modified the milestones: 4.0.0, 4.0.1, 4.1.0 Jun 25, 2021
@dsilhavy dsilhavy modified the milestones: 4.1.0, 4.1.1 Sep 15, 2021
@dsilhavy dsilhavy modified the milestones: 4.1.1, 4.2.0 Nov 10, 2021
@dsilhavy dsilhavy modified the milestones: 4.2.1, 4.3.0 Dec 8, 2021
@dsilhavy dsilhavy modified the milestones: 4.3.0, 4.3.1 Feb 14, 2022
@dsilhavy dsilhavy removed this from the 4.4.0 milestone Apr 14, 2022
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Sep 11, 2022

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. However, it might still be relevant so please leave a short comment if it should remain open. Otherwise the issue will be closed automatically after two weeks. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale To be used by automatic issue staling and closing to indicate that this issue is about to be closed label Sep 11, 2022
@dsilhavy
Copy link
Collaborator

unstale

@stale stale bot removed the stale To be used by automatic issue staling and closing to indicate that this issue is about to be closed label Sep 12, 2022
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Feb 9, 2023

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. However, it might still be relevant so please leave a short comment if it should remain open. Otherwise the issue will be closed automatically after two weeks. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale To be used by automatic issue staling and closing to indicate that this issue is about to be closed label Feb 9, 2023
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Feb 24, 2023

This issue has been automatically closed because no further activity occurred. If you think this issue is still relevant please reopen it or contact @dsilhavy. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot closed this as completed Feb 24, 2023
@dsilhavy dsilhavy reopened this Feb 24, 2023
@stale stale bot removed the stale To be used by automatic issue staling and closing to indicate that this issue is about to be closed label Feb 24, 2023
@dsilhavy dsilhavy added this to the 5.0.0 milestone Nov 13, 2023
@dsilhavy dsilhavy self-assigned this Nov 13, 2023
@dsilhavy
Copy link
Collaborator

This issue appeared again at MHV 24. The estimated throughput was higher than the expected one.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Selected for Development
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants