## 6 Evaluation
Moreover, none of the base layers are rejected when the scheduler is in _layerWise_ processing mode. If a base layer is rejected the remaining layers are not accommodated therefore, a base layer rejection is equivalent  
Figure 8: SVC Layers rejected. Figure 10: Enhancement Layer rejected. Figure 9: Base Layer rejected. to a client request rejection. The base layers are not rejected in _layerWise_ processing mode because the scheduler incrementally accommodates all client requests that is, the base layer of all clients are accepted first, then enhancement layer one, and so on. However, the number of rejected requests for enhancement layers bumps up, for the scheduler in _layerWise_ processing mode, as shown in the Figure 10, which is intuitive. The reason for this is because the maximum number of base layers have already saturated the server links for the scheduler in _layerWise_ processing mode. While looking at the results from Figures 9 and 10 we can conclude that the scheduler with _allLayers_ processing mode rejects the request of new clients at the cost of accommodating maximum request layers of clients it has accepted. Therefore, assigning priority to the client requests that are already accepted. Moreover, the scheduler in _layerWise_ processing mode gives priority to accepting a maximum number of client requests. In simpler words the scheduler in _allLayers_ processing mode accommodates fewer client requests as compared to the scheduler in _layerWise_ mode, but provides the accepted clients with a maximum number of SVC layers. Therefore, _allLayers_ results in higher video quality for each client. However, the scheduler in _layerWise_ processing mode accommodates the maximum number of client requests as compared to the scheduler in _allLayers_ mode, but provides the accepted clients with a minimum number of SVC layers. Therefore, the scheduler in _layerWise_ results in basic video quality for each client. But what makes the analysis interesting is the bandwidth consumption of scheduler configured in different forwarding and processing modes, as seen in Figure 11.  
Figure 11 shows the network bandwidth utilization for the scheduler configured with different processing and forwarding modes. Scheduler with _allLayer_ processing mode accommodates the maximum number of layers as seen from previous results. However, the bandwidth utilization for scheduler in _allLayer_ and _layerWise_ processing mode is similar. The reason for similar bandwidth is due to the forwarding modes of the scheduler. When the scheduler is in _singlePath_ forwarding mode all requests are placed on one path depending on the processing mode of the scheduler. However, when the scheduler is in _multiPath_ forwarding mode all requests are placed multiple paths depending on the processing mode of the scheduler. when the scheduler is in _multiPath_ forwarding mode, the first path found is usually the shortest path. Finding another path usually results in a longer path, therefore more bandwidth of links is utilized. We can also see in Figure 11 that around eighty percent of the paths that are connected to the servers are utilized while accommodating around five thousand requests. In order to accommodate the remaining client requests, maximum number of requests are rejected due to the server paths being saturated. Therefore, the server paths cannot accommodate the remaining layers of the requests. This results in sharp curve for the rejected number of layers as seen in Figures 8-10. Therefore, we can conclude from this that the network operators can  
Figure 11: Server network bandwidth utilization. utilize eighty percent of the server bandwidth for accepting client requests and the remaining twenty percent for network diagnostics, forwarding or switching. We finally look at our last graph which shows the total number of paths found by the scheduler, as shown in Figure 12. It is obvious that sending each SVC layer on different paths will result in finding more number of paths.