Cost Aware Adaptive Load Sharing

  • David Breitgand
  • Rami Cohen
  • Amir Nahir
  • Danny Raz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4725)


We consider load sharing in distributed systems where a stream of service requests arrives at a collection of n identical servers. The goal is to provide the service with the lowest possible average waiting time. This problem has been extensively studied before, but most previous models have not incorporated the monitoring costs explicitly. This paper focuses on a rigorous study of maximizing the utility of monitoring.

We extend the Supermarket Model for dynamic load sharing by explicitly incorporating monitoring costs. These costs stem from the fact that the servers have to answer load queries, a task which consumes both CPU and communication resources. This Extended Supermarket Model (ESM) allows us to formally study the tradeoff between the usefulness of monitoring information and the cost of obtaining it. In particular, we prove that for each service request rate, there exists an optimal number of servers that should be monitored to obtain minimal average waiting time.

Based on this theoretical analysis, we develop an autonomous load sharing scheme that adapts the number of monitored servers to the current load. We evaluate the performance of this scheme using extensive simulations. It turns out that in realistic scenarios, where monitoring costs are not negligible, the self-adaptive load balancing scheme is clearly superior to any load-oblivious load sharing mechanisms.


Service Time Load Balance Queue Length Service Request Monitoring Cost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Srisuresh, P., Gan, D.: Load Sharing using IP Network Address Translation (LSNAT) (August 1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mitzenmacher, M.: The power of two choices in randomized load balancing. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 12(10), 1094–1104 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breitgand, D., Nahir, A., Raz, D.: To know or not to know: on the needed amount of management information. Tech. Rep. IBM-TJ-0242, IBM Research, Watson  (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amir, Y., Awerbuch, B., Barak, A., Borgstrom, R.S., Keren, A.: An Opportunity Cost Approach for Job Assignment in a Scalable Computing Cluster. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 11(7), 760–768 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adam, C., Stadler, R.: Adaptable Server Clusters with QoS Objectives. In: IM 2005. 9th IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management, Nice, France, May 2005, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Efe, K., Groselj, B.: Minimizing control overheads in adaptive load sharing. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, June 1989, pp. 307–315 (1989)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seshan, S., Stemm, M., Katz, R.H.: SPAND: Shared passive network performance discovery. In: USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Azar, Y., Broder, A.Z., Karlin, A.R., Upfal, E.: Balanced allocations. SIAM Journal on Computing 29(1), 180–200 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mitzenmacher, M.: How useful is old information? IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 11(1), 6–20 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    hui, C.-C., Chanson, S.T.: Improved Strategies for Dynamic Load Balancing. IEEE Concurrency 7(3), 58–67 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Othman, O., Balasubramanian, J., Schmidt, D.C.: Performance Evaluation of an Adaptive Middleware Load Balancing and Monitoring Service. In: ICDCS. 24th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, Tokyo, Japan, May 2004, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Little, J.D.C.: A Proof for the Queueing Formula L = kW. Operations Research 9(3), 383–387 (1961)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitzenmacher, M., Prabhakar, B., Shah, D.: Load balancing with memory. In: FOCS 2002. Proceedings of the 43rd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 799–808. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohen, A., Rangarajan, S., Slye, H.: On the performance of TCP splicing for URL-aware redirection. In: 2nd USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and System, Boulder, CO, USA, October 1999 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    IBM Developer Network. SOA and Web Services.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Azar, Y., Broder, A.Z., Karlin, A.R.: On-line load balancing. Theoretical Computer Science 130(1), 73–84 (1994)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Breitgand
    • 1
  • Rami Cohen
    • 2
  • Amir Nahir
    • 1
  • Danny Raz
    • 2
  1. 1.IBM Haifa Research LabIsrael
  2. 2.CS Department, Technion, HaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations