Skip to main content
Log in

Scheduling with Deadlines and Buffer Management with Processing Requirements

  • Published:
Algorithmica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We discuss the well known online job scheduling problem with release times and deadlines, alongside an extended model—buffer management for packets with processing requirements. For job scheduling, an \({\varOmega }\left( \sqrt{\frac{\log {\kappa }}{\log {\log {\kappa }}}}\right) \) lower bound on the competitive ratio of any randomized preemptive algorithm was shown by Canetti and Irani (Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, ACM, pp 606–615, 1995), where \(\kappa \) is the the maximum job duration or the maximum job value (the minimum is assumed to be 1). The proof of this well-known result is fairly elaborate and involved. In contrast, we show a significantly improved lower bound of \({\varOmega }(\log {\kappa })\) using a simple proof. Our result matches the easy upper bound and closes a gap which was supposedly open for 20 years. We also discuss the problem of handling a FIFO buffer of a limited capacity, where packets arrive over time and may be preempted. Most of the work in buffer management considers the case where each packet has unit processing requirement. We consider a model where packets require some number of processing cycles before they can be transmitted. We aim to maximize the value of transmitted packets. We show an \({\varOmega }\left( \frac{\log {\kappa }}{\log {\log {\kappa }}}\right) \) lower bound on the competitive ratio of randomized algorithms in this setting. We also present bounds for several special cases. For packets with unit values we also show a \(\varphi \approx 1.618\) lower bound on the competitive ratio of deterministic algorithms, and a 2-competitive algorithm. For the case of packets with constant densities we present a 4-competitive algorithm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. By adding small perturbations the lower bound holds for algorithms that do not preempt when the ratio is exactly 2.

References

  1. Aiello, W.A., Mansour, Y., Rajagopolan, S., Rosén, A.: Competitive queue policies for differential services. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, pp. 431–440 (2000)

  2. Albers, S., Schmidt, M.: On the performance of greedy algorithms in packet buffering. SIAM J. Comput. 35(2), 278–304 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Azar, Y., Litichevskey, A.: Maximizing throughput in multi-queue switches. In: Algorithms—ESA, pp. 53–64. Springer (2004)

  4. Azar, Y., Richter, Y.: An improved algorithm for CIOQ switches. ACM Trans. Algorithms 2(2), 282–295 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Canetti, R., Irani, S.: Bounding the power of preemption in randomized scheduling. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 606–615. ACM (1995)

  6. Chuprikov, P., Nikolenko, S., Kogan, K.: Priority queueing with multiple packet characteristics. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, pp. 1418–1426 (2015)

  7. DasGupta, B., Palis, M.A.: Online real-time preemptive scheduling of jobs with deadlines. In: Approximation algorithms for combinatorial optimization, pp. 96–107. Springer (2000)

  8. Englert, M., Westermann, M.: Lower and upper bounds on FIFO buffer management in QoS switches. In: Algorithms—ESA, pp. 352–363. Springer (2006)

  9. Englert, M., Westermann, M.: Considering suppressed packets improves buffer management in qos switches. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 209–218. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (2007)

  10. Garay, J.A., Naor, J., Yener, B., Zhao, P.: On-line admission control and packet scheduling with interleaving. In: Proceedings of 21st Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, vol. 1, pp. 94–103. IEEE (2002)

  11. Goldwasser, M.: A survey of buffer management policies for packet switches. ACM SIGACT News 41(1), 100–128 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kalyanasundaram, B., Pruhs, K.: Speed is as powerful as clairvoyance. J. ACM 47(4), 617–643 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Kesselman, A., Kogan, K., Segal, M.: Packet mode and qos algorithms for buffered crossbar switches with fifo queuing. Distrib. Comput. 23(3), 163–175 (2010)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Kesselman, A., Kogan, K., Segal, M.: Improved competitive performance bounds for CIOQ switches. Algorithmica 63(1–2), 411–424 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Kesselman, A., Lotker, Z., Mansour, Y., Patt-Shamir, B., Schieber, B., Sviridenko, M.: Buffer overflow management in QoS switches. SIAM J. Comput. 33(3), 563–583 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Kesselman, A., Patt-Shamir, B., Scalosub, G.: Competitive buffer management with packet dependencies. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing, pp. 1–12. IEEE (2009)

  17. Kogan, K., López-Ortiz, A., Nikolenko, S., Sirotkin, A.: Multi-queued network processors for packets with heterogeneous processing requirements. In: 5th International Conference on Communication Systems and Networks, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2013)

  18. Kogan, K., López-Ortiz, A., Nikolenko, S., Sirotkin, A.V., et al.: A taxonomy of semi-FIFO policies. In: Performance Computing and Communications Conference (IPCCC), IEEE 31st International, pp. 295–304. IEEE (2012)

  19. Nikolenko, S.I., Kogan, K.: Single and multiple buffer processing. In: Encyclopedia of Algorithms, pp. 1988–1994. Springer (2016)

  20. Kogan, K., Nikolenko, S., López-Ortiz, A., Scalosub, G., Segal, M.: Balancing work and size with bounded buffers. In: COMSNETS, pp. 1–8 (2014)

  21. Koren, G., Shasha, D.: D over; an optimal on-line scheduling algorithm for overloaded real-time systems. In: Real-Time Systems Symposium, pp. 290–299. IEEE (1992)

  22. Mansour, Y., Patt-Shamir, B., Lapid, O.: Optimal smoothing schedules for real-time streams. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 21–29. ACM (2000)

  23. Mansour, Y., Patt-Shamir, B., Rawitz, D.: Overflow management with multipart packets. Comput. Netw. 56(15), 3456–3467 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pruhs, K.: Competitive online scheduling for server systems. ACM SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev. 34(4), 52–58 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pruhs, K., Sgall, J., Torng, E.: Online scheduling. Handbook of Scheduling: Algorithms, Models, and Performance Analysis, pp. 115–124. Chapman and Hall/CRC (2003)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yossi Azar.

Additional information

Supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 1506/16) and by the Israeli Centers of Research Excellence (I-CORE) program (Center No. 4/11).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Azar, Y., Gilon, O. Scheduling with Deadlines and Buffer Management with Processing Requirements. Algorithmica 78, 1246–1262 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-016-0257-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-016-0257-1

Keywords

Navigation