Advertisement

Journal of Scheduling

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 269–285 | Cite as

Admission Control with Immediate Notification

  • Michael H. Goldwasser
  • Boris Kerbikov
Article

Abstract

When admission control is used, an on-line scheduler chooses whether or not to complete each individual job successfully by its deadline. An important consideration is at what point in time the scheduler determines if a job request will be satisfied, and thus at what point the scheduler is able to provide notification to the job owner as to the fate of the request. In the loosest model, often seen in real-time systems, such a decision can be deferred up until the job's deadline passes. In the strictest model, more suitable for customer-based applications, a scheduler would be required to give notification at the instant that a job request arrives.

Unfortunately there seems to be little existing research which explicitly studies the effect of the notification model on the performance guarantees of a scheduler. We undertake such a study by reexamining a problem from the literature. Specifically, we study the effect of the notification model on the non-preemptive scheduling of a single resource in order to maximize utilization. At first glance, it appears severely more restrictive to compare a scheduler required to give immediate notification to one which need not give any notification. Yet we are able to present alternate algorithms which provide immediate notification, while matching most of the performance guarantees which are possible by schedulers which provide no such notification. In only one case are we able to give evidence that providing immediate notification may be more difficult.

online scheduling firm deadlines admission control notification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Awerbuch, B., Y. Azar, and S. Plotkin, “Throughput-competitive online routing,” in Proc. 34th Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, Palo Alto, California, November 1993, pp. 32-40.Google Scholar
  2. Awerbuch, B., Y. Bartal, A. Fiat, and A. Rosén, “Competitive non-preemptive call control,” in Proc. 5th Ann. ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms, Arlington, Virginia, January 1994, pp. 312-320.Google Scholar
  3. Bar-Noy, A., R. Canetti, S. Kutten, Y. Mansour, and B. Schiber, “Bandwidth allocation with preemption,” in Proc. 27th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, Las Vegas, Nevada, June 1995, pp. 616-625.Google Scholar
  4. Bar-Noy, A., J. A. Garay, A. Herzberg, and S. Aggarwal, “Sharing video on demand,” Manuscript, 1998. Presented at the Workshop on Algorithmic Aspects of Communication, Bologna, Italy, July 1997.Google Scholar
  5. Bayer, R., “Symmetric binary B-trees: data structure and maintenance,” Acta Informatica, 1(4), 290-306 (1972).Google Scholar
  6. Ben-David, S., A. Borodin, R. Karp, G. Tardos, and A. Widgerson, “On the power of randomization in on-line algorithms,” Algorithmica, 11(1), 2-14 (1994).Google Scholar
  7. Borodin, A. and R. El-Yaniv, Online Computation and Competitive Analysis, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. Cormen, T. H., C. E. Leiserson, and R. L. Rivest, Introduction to Algorithms, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. Garey, J., I. Gopal, and S. Kutten, “Efficient online call control algorithms,” J. Algorithms, 23(1), 180-194 (1997).Google Scholar
  10. Goldman, S., J. Parwatikar, and S. Suri, “On-line scheduling with hard deadlines,” J. Algorithms, 34(2), 370-389 (February 2000).Google Scholar
  11. Goldwasser, M. H., “Patience is a virtue: the effect of slack on competitiveness for admission control,” J. Scheduling, 6(2), 183-211 (2003).Google Scholar
  12. Graham, R., E. L. Lawler, J. K. Lenstra, and A. Rinnooy Kan, “Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling: a survey,” in Discrete Optimization II, Vol. 5 of Annals of Discrete Mathematics, North Holland, 1979, pp. 287-326.Google Scholar
  13. Guibas, L. J. and R. Sedgewick, “A dichromatic framework for balanced trees,” in Proc. 19th Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1978, pp. 8-21.Google Scholar
  14. Jackson, J. R., “Scheduling a production line to minimize maximum tardiness,” Research Report 43. Managements Sciences Research Project, UCLA, January 1955.Google Scholar
  15. Karlin, A., M. Manasse, L. Rudolph, and D. Sleator, “Competitive snoopy paging,” Algorithmica, 3(1), 70-119 (1988).Google Scholar
  16. Kopetz, H., Real-time Systems: Design Principles for Distributed Embedded Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. Lipton, R. and A. Tomkins, “Online interval scheduling,” in Proc. 5th Ann. ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms, Arlington, Virginia, January 1994, pp. 302-311.Google Scholar
  18. Plotkin, S.A., “Competitive routing of virtual circuits in ATM networks,” IEEE J. Selected Areas Commun., 13(6), 1128-1136 (1995).Google Scholar
  19. Raghavan, P. and M. Snir, “Memory versus randomization in on-line algorithms,” IBM J. Res. Dev., 38, 683-707 (1994).Google Scholar
  20. Sleator, D. and R. Tarjan, “Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules,” Commun. ACM, 28, 202-208 (1985).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael H. Goldwasser
  • Boris Kerbikov

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations