EFD: An Efficient Low-Overhead Scheduler

  • Jinbang Chen
  • Martin Heusse
  • Guillaume Urvoy-Keller
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6641)

Abstract

Size-based scheduling methods receive a lot of attention as they can greatly enhance the responsiveness perceived by the users. In effect, they give higher priority to small interactive flows which are the important ones for a good user experience. In this paper, we propose a new packet scheduling method, Early Flow Discard (EFD), which belongs to the family of Multi-Level Processor Sharing policies. Compared to earlier proposals, the key feature of EFD is the way flow bookkeeping is performed as flow entries are removed from the flow table as soon as there is no more corresponding packet in the queue. In this way, the active flow table remains of small size at all times. EFD is not limited to a scheduling policy but also incorporates a buffer management policy. We show through extensive simulations that EFD retains the most desirable property of more resource intensive size-based methods, namely low response time for short flows, while limiting lock-outs of large flows and effectively protecting low/medium rate multimedia transfers.

Keywords

size-based scheduling performance LAS Run2C 

References

  1. 1.
    QualNet 4.5. Scalable NetworksGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aalto, S., Lassila, P.: Impact of size-based scheduling on flow level performance in wireless downlink data channels. Managing Traffic Performance in Converged Networks, 1096–1107 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Avrachenkov, K., Ayesta, U., Brown, P., Nyberg, E.: Differentiation between short and long tcp flows: Predictability of the response time. In: Proc. IEEE INFOCOM (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Divakaran, D.M., Carofiglio, G., Altman, E., Primet, P.V.B.: A flow scheduler architecture. In: Crovella, M., Feeney, L.M., Rubenstein, D., Raghavan, S.V. (eds.) NETWORKING 2010. LNCS, vol. 6091, pp. 122–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gittins, J.: Multi-armed bandit allocation indices. Wiley Interscience, Hoboken (1989)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Golestani, S.: A self-clocked fair queueing scheme for broadband applications. In: 13th Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 1994. Networking for Global Communications, vol. 2, pp. 636–646 (June 1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heusse, M., Urvoy-Keller, G., Duda, A., Brown, T.X.: Least attained recent service for packet scheduling over wireless lans. In: WoWMoM 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kleinrock, L.: Computer Applications, 1st edn., Queueing Systems, vol. 2. Wiley Interscience, Hoboken (1976)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kortebi, A., Oueslati, S., Roberts, J.: Cross-protect: Implicit service differentiation and admission control. In: IEEE HPSR (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lassila, P., Aalto, S.: Combining opportunistic and size-based scheduling in wireless systems. In: MSWiM 2008: Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems, pp. 323–332. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Noureddine, W., Tobagi, F.: Improving the performance of interactive tcp applications using service differentiation. Computer Networks Journal, 2002–2354 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Psounis, K., Ghosh, A., Prabhakar, B., Wang, G.: Sift: A simple algorithm for tracking elephant flows, and taking advantage of power laws. In: 43rd Annual Allerton Conference on Control, Communication and Computing (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rai, I.A., Biersack, E.W., Urvoy-keller, G.: Size-based scheduling to improve the performance of short tcp flows. IEEE Network 19, 12–17 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rai, I.A., Urvoy-Keller, G., Vernon, M.K., Biersack, E.W.: Performance analysis of las-based scheduling disciplines in a packet switched network. In: SIGMETRICS 2004/PERFORMANCE 2004: Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, vol. 32, pp. 106–117. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schroeder, B., Harchol-Balter, M.: Web servers under overload: How scheduling can help. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 6(1), 20–52 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Urvoy-Keller, G., Beylot, A.L.: Improving flow level fairness and interactivity in wlans using size-based scheduling policies. In: MSWiM 2008: Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems, pp. 333–340. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jinbang Chen
    • 1
  • Martin Heusse
    • 2
  • Guillaume Urvoy-Keller
    • 3
  1. 1.EurecomSophia-AntipolisFrance
  2. 2.Grenoble-INP / UJF-Grenoble 1 / UPMF-Grenoble 2 / CNRS, LIG UMR 5217GrenobleFrance
  3. 3.Laboratoire I3S CNRSUniversité de NiceSophia AntipolisFrance

Personalised recommendations