Centre closure

This page is part of the GENIUS project.

Two Idle Web Cameras Traffic Results

The following graphs represent the inter-packet arrival times and packet lengths when two web cameras, between Computer 1 and Computer 2, transmitted and received video with no movement in front of the web cameras.

Inter-packet Arrival Results

Figures 4.1 to 4.4 show the TCP connection for Web Camera 1 and Figures 4.5 to 4.8 show the TCP connection for Web Camera 2.

Figure 4.1	Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3	Figure 4.4

From Figures 4.1 and 4.2 we can see that Computer 1 received over 74% of all packets with an inter-packet arrival time of 201ms from Computer 2 and over 5% with an inter-packet arrival time of less than 0.25ms. Just under 9% of packets had an inter-arrival time between 1usec and 1ms.

As seen in Figures 4.3 and 4.4, approximately 51% of packets transmitted by Computer 1 had an inter-packet arrival time at Computer 2 of 201ms with just under 14% of packets with an inter-arrival time of 201.25ms. Over 14% of packets had an inter-arrival time of less than 0.25ms. A total of more than 17% of packets had an inter-arrival time of between 1usec and 1ms. The small gradients seen in Figures 4.2 and 4.4 correspond to the spread of inter-packet arrival times of all other packets.

Figure 4.5	Figure 4.6
Figure 4.7	Figure 4.8

The majority of packets arrived at Computer 1 and Computer 2 with an inter-packet arrival time of 201ms as seen in Figures 4.5 to 4.8. When the packet flow occured from Computer 2 to Computer 1, over 56% of packets had an inter-packet arrival time of 201ms. A further almost 14% had an inter-packet arrival time of 201.25ms and over 10% had an inter-packet arrival time of less than 0.25ms.

Approximately 79% of packets had an inter-packet arrival time of 201ms and almost 4% with an inter-packet arrival time of less than 0.25ms from Computer 1 to Computer 2.

---

Packet Length Results

Figures 4.9 to 4.12 show the TCP connection for Web Camera 1 and Figures 4.13 to 4.16 show the TCP connection for Web Camera 2.

Figure 4.9	Figure 4.10
Figure 4.11	Figure 4.12

We can see in Figures 4.9 and 4.10 that over 98% of all packets were 46 bytes long. These packets correspond to ACK packets sent by Computer 2 to Computer 1, the computer whose web camera this traffic flow belongs to.

Since Computer 1 is the computer to which Web Cam 1 is connected, there are a greater variety of packet sizes being sent to Computer 2. We can see that Figures 4.11 and 4.12 resemble the idle packet length graph from Computer 1 to Computer 2 when one idle web cam is operating (Figure 2.7). The most significant features of the graph are the spikes corresponding to over 44% at 856 bytes, over 14% at 1500 bytes, less than 10% at 860 bytes, just under 4% at 64 bytes and over 3% at 584 bytes long.

Figure 4.13	Figure 4.14
Figure 4.15	Figure 4.16

Figures 4.13 and 4.14 show greater packet length variety from Computer 2 to Computer 1 as Computer 2 has the web camera whose flow the histograms represent. The largest peak at 1500 bytes only represents just over 10% of the total packets. From 924 to 1024 bytes the peaks account for over 47% of the total packet lengths. Less than 4% of packets were 64 bytes long.

Again we can see 46 byte ACKs from Computer 1 to Computer 2 in Figures 4.15 and 4.16. Almost 100% of packets were 46 bytes long.

---

© Swinburne Copyright and disclaimer Privacy Feedback Last Updated: Monday 10-May-2004 15:02:55 AEST URL: Maintained by: Ana Pavlicic apavlicic@groupwise.swin.edu.au Authorised by: Grenville Armitage garmitage@swin.edu.au