Comparing Push- and Pull-Based Broadcasting

Or: Would “Microsoft Watches” Profit from a Transmitter?
  • Alexander Hall
  • Hanjo Täubig
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2647)

Abstract

The first main goal of this paper is to present Sketch-it!, a framework aiming to facilitate development and experimental evaluation of new scheduling algorithms. It comprises many helpful data-structures, a graphical interface with several components and a library with implementations of selected scheduling algorithms. Every scheduling problem covered by the classification-scheme originally proposed by Graham et al. [22] can easily be integrated into the framework.

One of the more recent enhancements of this scheme, the so called broadcast scheduling problem, was chosen for an extensive case study of Sketch-it!, yielding very interesting experimental results that represent the second main contribution of this paper. In broadcast scheduling many clients listen to a high bandwidth channel on which a server can transmit documents of a given set. Over time the clients request certain documents. In the pull-based setting each client has access to a slow bandwidth channel whereon it notifies the server about its requests. In the push-based setting no such channel exists. Instead it is assumed that requests for certain documents arrive randomly with probabilities known to the server. The goal in both settings is to generate broadcast schedules for these documents which minimize the average time a client has to wait until a request is answered.

We conduct experiments with several algorithms on generated data. We distinguish scenarios for which a slow feedback channel is very advantageous, and others where its benefits are negligible, answering the question posed in the title.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    S. Acharya, R. Alonso, M. Franklin, and S. Zdonik. Broadcast disks: Data management for asymmetric communication environments. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference, pages 199–210, San Jose, CA, May 1995.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Acharya, M. Franklin, and S. Zdonik. Prefetching from a broadcast disk. In Proceedings of the 12th Int. Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pages 276–285, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 1996.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S. Acharya, M. Franklin, and S. Zdonik. Balancing push and pull for data broadcast. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD, Tuscon, Arizona, May 1997.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. Acharya and S. Muthukrishnan. Scheduling on-demand broadcasts: New metrics and algorithms. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom), pages 43–54, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 1998. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    D. Aksoy and M. Franklin. Scheduling for large-scale on-demand data broadcasting. In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM Conference, pages 651–659, San Francisco, CA, March 1998.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    D. Aksoy and M. Franklin. RxW: A scheduling approach for large-scale ondemand data broadcast. ACM/IEEE Transactions on Networking, 7(6):846–860, December 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. H. Ammar and J. W. Wong. The design of teletext broadcast cycles. Performance Evaluation, 5(4):235–242, Dec 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. H. Ammar and J. sW. Wong. On the optimality of cyclic transmission in teletext systems. IEEE Transaction on Communication, COM, 35(1):68–73, Jan 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. Bar-Noy, R. Bhatia, J. Naor, and B. Schieber. Minimizing service and operation costs of periodic scheduling. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 11–20, San Francisco, California, January 1998. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    P. Barford and M. Crovella. Generating representative web workloads for network and server performance evaluation. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS, Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, pages 151–160, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, June 1998. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Y. Bartal and S. Muthukrishnan. Minimizing maximum response time in scheduling broadcasts. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 558–559, San Francisco, California, January 2000. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. A. Bender, S. Chakrabarti, and S. Muthukrishnan. Flow and stretch metrics for scheduling continuous job streams. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 270–279, San Francisco, California, January 1998. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. Błażewicz, K. H. Ecker, E. Pesch, G. Schmidt, and J. Weglarz. Scheduling Computer and Manufacturing Processes. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    P. Brucker. Scheduling Algorithms. Springer-Verlag, 3rd edition, September 2001.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    P. Chrétienne, E. G. Coffman, Jr., J. K. Lenstra, and Z. Liu. Scheduling Theory and its Applications. John Wiley & Sons, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    M. Crovella, M. Harchol-Balter, and C. D. Murta. Task assignment in a distributed system: Improving performance by unbalancing load. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS, Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, pages 268–269, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, June 1998. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    M. E. Crovella and A. Bestavros. Self-similarity in world wide web traffic: Evidence and possible causes. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 5(6):835–846, December 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    DirecPC. Website. http://www.direcpc.com.
  19. [19]
    J. Edmonds and K. Pruhs. Broadcast scheduling: When fairness is fine. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 421–430, San Francisco, California, January 2002. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    T. Erlebach and A. Hall. NP-hardness of broadcast scheduling and inapproximability of single-source unsplittable min-cost flow. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 194–202, San Francisco, California, January 2002. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    R. Gandhi, S. Khuller, Y.-A. Kim, and Y.-C. Wan. Algorithms for minimizing response time in broadcast scheduling. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization (IPCO), volume 2337 of LNCS, pages 425–438, Cambridge, MA, USA, May 2002. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    R. L. Graham, E. L. Lawler, J. K. Lenstra, and A. H. G. Rinnooy Kan. Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling: A survey. Ann. Discrete Math, 5:287–326, 1979.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    S. Hameed and N. H. Vaidya. Efficient algorithms for scheduling data broadcast. Wireless Networks, 5(3):183–193, May 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    @Home Network. Website. http://www.home.net.
  25. [25]
    Institut für Algebra und Geometrie, Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg. LiSA Homepage. http://www.lisa.math.uni-magdeburg.de.
  26. [26]
    B. Kalyanasundaram, K. Pruhs, and M. Velauthapillai. Scheduling broadcasts in wireless networks. In Proc. of the 8th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA), volume 1879 of LNCS, pages 290–301, Saarbrücken, Germany, September 2000. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    C. Kenyon and N. Schabanel. The data broadcast problem with non-uniform transmission times. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 547–556, January 1999.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    C. Kenyon, N. Schabanel, and N. E. Young. Polynomial-time approximation scheme for data broadcast. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 659–666, May 2000.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    B. Meier. Simulation of algorithms for stochastic scheduling problems. Diploma thesis, Technische Universität München, February 2003.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Algorithmic Solutions Software GmbH. LEDA. http://www.algorithmic-solutions.com/.
  31. [31]
    Lehrstuhl für Effiziente Algorithmen. Sketch-it! Documentation. http://wwwmayr.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/scheduling/scheduling-api/html/classes.html.
  32. [32]
    Lehrstuhl für Effiziente Algorithmen. Sketch-it! Homepage. http://wwwmayr.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/scheduling/.
  33. [33]
    LIMI/EA 2215, University of Brest. The Cheddar project: a free real time scheduling simulator. http://beru.univ-brest.fr/singhoff/cheddar/.
  34. [34]
    Microsoft PressPass. Microsoft Presents Smart Personal Objects Technology (SPOT)-Based Wristwatches at CES. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/jan03/01-09SPOTWatchesPR.asp.
  35. [35]
  36. [36]
    N. Schabanel. The data broadcast problem with preemption. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS), volume 1770 of LNCS, pages 181–192, Lille, France, February 2000. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    H. Täubig. Simulation of multiprocessor scheduling problems. Diploma thesis, Technische Universität München, August 2000.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    N. H. Vaidya and S. Hameed. Scheduling data broadcast in asymmetric communication environments. Wireless Networks, 5(3):171–182, May 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Hall
    • 1
  • Hanjo Täubig
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Engineering and Networks LaboratoryETH ZürichZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceTU MünchenGarching b. MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations