A New Efficient Architecture for Adaptive Bit-Rate Video Streaming

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although, I consider the submitted manuscript about the adaptive bit-rate video delivery architecture as quite interesting, the methodology, terminology and formal aspects would be much better prepared. Literature review sounds but the methodology is unclear due to mistakes and lack of technical details. Although English is not my native language, I have found many and many mistakes in spelling (for example: „Word press“, „per cent“ instead Wordpress, percent,..., “adaptive liveR streaming”? Maybe live streaming, „This metric defines the period between starting time of loading a video and staring time of playing it“....maybe starting time! etc).

I recommend to use the term „CDNs“ instead „CDN´s“, too. The key term, „CDN“, should be defined before its first occurrence in the paper. I found  a duplication or redundant repetition of words: „The main contributions
of this paper are as follows: The main contributions of the proposed RIVIMS are followed as“. You have written that „CDN can significantly reduce the response time and quality of service to which it is used.“... do you mean: ENHANCE QoS? It is not clear. DASH protocol is mentioned but without any description.  

What effect has the use of virtual machines on overall performance of proposed architecture? Because, the overall performance of system is shared between virtual machines. Could you describe the technical background of virtual architecture in more detail, please? „Linux 16.04“ does not exist. You maybe thought „Ubuntu 16.04“ or other complex Linux-based distribution. The term „Linux“ does not mean the whole operating system but only the core element of a OS (kernel). Next, the Figure 1 has very bad text wrapping... manag-er. Figure 2 and 5 are shown in a very poor quality, too. Figure 3 contains a mistake -load balancing server ..not „balencing“. Many figures are as careless prepared as the figure 7. They look like from 1990s – in direct comparison with figure 6, for example. Figure 8 - presented curve is continuous or based on discrete points? It is different.

„DNS load balancer...is used to end the effect of a single point of failure.“ What is the point of failure about? Is it the primary purpose of the load balancer? I recommend to change the measurement units from milisenconds to seconds (the maximum peak of accumulative time) - there are many zeroes

Finally, the presented topic has much more potential than is currently presented in the manuscript. Especially, the formal aspects should be much better prepared.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their time.

We confirm that we have addressed all the mentioned comments.

Please find the response in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It is not clear how this paper fits with the Sustainability Journal. Efficiency is mentioned in the title and abstract but only briefly. No measurement is made to compare the proposed archirecture with the existing solutions from an energy efficient stand point.

Most of the images/graphics have resolution issues and have a wide variation in quality. This should be corrected before submission.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his time.

We confirm that we have addressed all the mentioned comments.

Please find the response in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The submitted manuscript has very good intentions and although it is a topic of interest to the scientific community, I do observe some specific corrections to be made. I comment on them below:

- What are the future lines of research proposed by the work?
-What does it contribute to the subject area compared to other published materials?
-Expand the conclusions and connect it in relation to the results obtained so that they present greater forcefulness.
-Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
- Incorporate and update bibliographic references in the text and at the end of it. Some are recommended:

doi.org/10.3390/s18113728
doi.org/10.3390/su12104091
-Reduce the frame of reference making the reader more enjoyable.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his time.

We confirm that we have addressed all the mentioned comments.

Please find the response in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manusript has been significantly improved against the previous version. I recommend it for publication if other reviewers accepted the current version.

Author Response

Please find response in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.doc