Advertisement

The Power of Preemption in Economic Online Markets

  • Lior Amar
  • Ahuva Mu’alem
  • Jochen Stößer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5206)

Abstract

In distributed computer networks where resources are under decentralized control, selfish users will generally not work towards one common goal, such as maximizing the overall value provided by the system, but will instead try to strategically maximize their individual benefit. This shifts the scheduling policy in such systems – the decision about which user may access what resource – from being a purely algorithmic challenge to the domain of mechanism design.

In this paper we will showcase the benefit of allowing preemption in such economic online settings regarding the performance of market mechanisms by extending the Decentralized Local Greedy Mechanism of Heydenreich et al. [11]. This mechanism was shown to be 3.281-competitive with respect to total weighted completion time if the players act rationally. We show that the preemptive version of this mechanism is 2-competitive. As a by-product, preemption allows to relax the assumptions on jobs upon which this competitiveness relies. In addition to this worst case analysis, we provide an in-depth empirical analysis of the average case performance of the original mechanism and its preemptive extension based on real workload traces. Our empirical findings indicate that introducing preemption improves both the utility and the slowdown of the jobs. Furthermore, this improvement does not come at the expense of low-priority jobs.

Keywords

Mechanism Design Online Scheduling Preemption 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amar, L., Mu’alem, A., Stößer, J.: On the importance of migration for fairness in online grid markets (submitted for publication)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barak, A., Shiloh, A., Amar, L.: An organizational grid of federated mosix clusters. In: CCGrid 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christodoulou, G., Koutsoupias, E., Vidali, A.: A lower bound for scheduling mechanisms. In: SODA 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chun, B., Culler, D.: Market-based Proportional Resource Sharing for Clusters.Technical report, Computer Science Division, University of California (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chun, B.N., Culler, D.E.: User-centric performance analysis of market-based cluster batch schedulers. In: CCGrid 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feitelson, D.: Parallel workloads archive (2008), http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/labs/parallel/workload/
  7. 7.
    Figueiredo, R.J., Dinda, P.A., Fortes, J.A.B.: A case for grid computing on virtual machines. In: ICDCS 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friedman, E., Parkes, D.: Pricing WiFi at Starbucks: issues in online mechanism design. In: EC 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Graham, R.L., Lawler, E.L., Lenstra, J.K., Kan, A.H.G.R.: Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling theory: a survey. Annals of Discrete Mathematics 5, 287–326 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harchol-Balter, M., Downey, A.B.: Exploiting process lifetime distributions for dynamic load balancing. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 15(3), 253–285 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heydenreich, B., Müller, R., Uetz, M.: Decentralization and mechanism design for online machine scheduling. In: SWAT 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lavi, R., Mu’alem, A., Nisan, N.: Towards a characterization of truthful combinatorial auctions. In: FOCS 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lavi, R., Nisan, N.: Online ascending auctions for gradually expiring items. In: SODA 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Megow, N., Schulz, A.: On-line scheduling to minimize average completion time revisited. Operations Research Letters 32(5), 485–490 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mu’alem, A., Feitelson, D.: Utilization, predictability, workloads, and user runtime estimates in scheduling the IBM SP 2 with backfilling. IEEE TPDS 12(6), 529–543 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    MuŠalem, A., Schapira, M.: Setting lower bounds on truthfulness. In: SODA 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nisan, N., Roughgarden, T., Tardos, E., Vazirani, V.V.: Algorithmic Game Theory. Cambridge University Press, New York (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Porter, R.: Mechanism design for online real-time scheduling. In: EC 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sanghavi, S., Hajek, B.: Optimal allocation of a divisible good to strategic buyers. In: IEEE CDC (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith, W.E.: Various Optimizers for Single-Stage Production. Naval Resource Logistics Quarterly 3, 59–66 (1956)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lior Amar
    • 1
  • Ahuva Mu’alem
    • 2
  • Jochen Stößer
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Social and Information Sciences Laboratory (SISL)California Institute of TechnologyPasadenaUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Information Systems and Management (IISM)Universität Karlsruhe (TH)KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations