Cluster Computing

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 57–65 | Cite as

Deferred Assignment Scheduling in Cluster-Based Servers

  • Victoria Ungureanu
  • Benjamin Melamed
  • Michael Katehakis
  • Phillip G. Bradford


This paper proposes a new scheduling policy for cluster-based servers called DAS (Deferred Assignment Scheduling). The main idea in DAS is to defer scheduling as much as possible in order to make better use of the accumulated information on job sizes. In broad outline, DAS operates as follows: (1) incoming jobs are held by the dispatcher in a buffer; (2) the dispatcher monitors the number of jobs being processed by each server; (3) when the number of jobs at a server queue drops below a prescribed threshold, the dispatcher sends to it the shortest job in its buffer.

To gauge the efficacy of DAS, the paper presents simulation studies, using various data traces. The studies collected response times and slowdowns for two cluster configurations under multi-threaded and multi-process back-end server architectures. The experimental results show that in both architectures, DAS outperforms the Round-Robin policy in all traffic regimes, and the JSQ (Join Shortest Queue) policy in medium and heavy traffic regimes.


clustered servers deferred assignment heavy-tail distribution scheduling simulation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    The Apache HTTP Server Project,
  2. [2]
    M. Arlitt and T. Jin, Workload characterization of the 1998 World Cup Web Site, IEEE Network 14(3) (2000) 30–37. Extended version: Tech Report HPL-1999-35R1, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, September 1999.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    P. Bruckner, Scheduling Algorithms, Third Edition (Springer-Verlag, 2001).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    G. Ciardo, A. Riska and E. Smirni, EquiLoad: A load balancing policy for clustered web servers, Performance Evaluation 46(2/3) (2001) 101–124.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Colajanni, P.S. Yu and D.M. Dias, Analysis of task assignment policies in scalable distributed web-Server Systems, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 9(6) (1998).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    G. Coulouris, J. Dollimore and T. Kindberg, Distributed Systems - Concepts and Design (Addison-Wesley, 2001).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M.E. Crovella, M.S. Taqqu and A. Bestavros, Heavy-tailed probability distributions in the world wide web, in: A Practical Guide To Heavy Tails, Chapman Hall, New York, (1998) pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Faloutsos, P. Faloutsos and C. Faloutsos, On power-law relationships of the internet topology, in: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '99 (1999) pp. 251–262.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Harchol-Balter, Task Assignment with Unknown Duration, Journal of the ACM, 49(2) (2002) 260–288. (Extended Abstract, in: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), Taipei, Taiwan, April 2000).)Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Harchol-Balter, M.E. Crovella and C.D. Murta, On choosing a task assignment policy for a distributed server system, in Proceedings of Performance Tools '98, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1468 (1998) pp. 231–242.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. Harchol-Balter, B. Schroeder, N. Bansal and M. Agrawal, Size-based scheduling to improve web performance, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 21(2), (2003).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Y. Hu, A. Nanda and Q. Yang, Measurement, analysis and performance improvement of the apache web server, International Journal of Computers and Their Applications 8(4) (2001) 217–231.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    K. Kant, V. Tewari and R. Iyer, Geist: A generator of E-commerce and Internet Server Traffic, in: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS), November (2001) pp. 49–56,.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    K. Kant, V. Tewari and R. Iye, Geist: A Web Traffic Generation Tool Source, in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Performance Evaluation, Modeling Techniques and Tools, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 2324 (2002) 227–232.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    M. Katehakis, and C. Melolidakis, On the optimal maintenance of systems and control of arrivals in queues, Stochastic Analysis and Applications, 8(2) (1994) 12–25.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    M. Pinedo, Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms, and Systems (Prentice Hall, 2002).Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    V.S. Pai, M. Aron, G. Banga, M. Svendsen, P. Druschel, W. Zwaenepoel and E. Nahum, Locality-aware request distribution in cluster-based network servers. in Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS-VIII) (1998).Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    R. Righter, Scheduling in multiclass networks with deterministic service times, Queuing Systems 41(4) (2002) 305–319.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    A. Riska, W. Sun, E. Smirni and G. Ciardo, AdaptLoad: Effective balancing in clustered web servers under transient load conditions, in Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS'02) (2002).Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    S.M. Ross, Probability Models for Computer Science. (Academic Press, 2002).Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    M.H. Rothkopf, Scheduling with random service times. Management Science 12 (1996) 703–713.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    W.E. Smith, Various optimizers for single-stage production, Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 3 (1956) 59–66.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Y.M. Teo and R. Ayani, Comparison of load balancing strategies on cluster-based web servers, Simulation, The Journal of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 77(5–6) (2001) 185–195.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    W. Whitt, Deciding which queue to Join: Some Counter Examples. Operations Research 34(1) (1986) 55–62.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    W. Winston, Optimality of the shortest line discipline, Journal of Applied Probability 14 (1977) 181–189.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victoria Ungureanu
    • 1
  • Benjamin Melamed
    • 2
  • Michael Katehakis
    • 3
  • Phillip G. Bradford
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of MSISRutgers UniversityPiscataway
  2. 2.Department of MSISRutgers UniversityNewark
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of AlabamaTuscaloosa
  4. 4.DIMACS CenterPiscataway

Personalised recommendations