Advertisement

Abstract

We consider online preemptive scheduling of jobs with fixed starting times revealed at those times on m uniformly related machines, with the goal of maximizing the total weight of completed jobs. Every job has a size and a weight associated with it. A newly released job must be either assigned to start running immediately on a machine or otherwise it is dropped. It is also possible to drop an already scheduled job, but only completed jobs contribute their weights to the profit of the algorithm.

In the most general setting, no algorithm has bounded competitive ratio, and we consider a number of standard variants. We give a full classification of the variants into cases which admit constant competitive ratio (weighted and unweighted unit jobs, and C-benevolent instances, which is a wide class of instances containing proportional-weight jobs), and cases which admit only a linear competitive ratio (unweighted jobs and D-benevolent instances). In particular, we give a lower bound of m on the competitive ratio for scheduling unit weight jobs with varying sizes, which is tight. For unit size and weight we show that a natural greedy algorithm is 4/3-competitive and optimal on m = 2 machines, while for a large m, its competitive ratio is between 1.56 and 2. Furthermore, no algorithm is better than 1.5-competitive.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Awerbuch, B., Bartal, Y., Fiat, A., Rosén, A.: Competitive non-preemptive call control. In: Proc. of 5th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 1994), pp. 312–320 (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Canetti, R., Irani, S.: Bounding the power of preemption in randomized scheduling. SIAM Journal on Computing 27(4), 993–1015 (1998)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krumke, S.O., Thielen, C., Westphal, S.: Interval scheduling on related machines. Computers & Operations Research 38(12), 1836–1844 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Faigle, U., Nawijn, W.M.: Note on scheduling intervals on-line. Discrete Appliled Mathematics 58(1), 13–17 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fung, S.P.Y., Poon, C.K., Zheng, F.: Online interval scheduling: randomized and multiprocessor cases. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization 16(3), 248–262 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fung, S.P.Y., Poon, C.K., Zheng, F.: Improved Randomized Online Scheduling of Unit Length Intervals and Jobs. In: Bampis, E., Skutella, M. (eds.) WAOA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5426, pp. 53–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fung, S.P.Y., Poon, C.K., Yung, D.K.W.: On-line scheduling of equal-length intervals on parallel machines. Information Processing Letters 112(10), 376–379 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fung, S.P.Y., Poon, C.K., Zheng, F.: Improved randomized online scheduling of intervals and jobs. CoRR abs/1202.2933 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Woeginger, G.J.: On-line scheduling of jobs with fixed start and end times. Theoretical Computer Science 130(1), 5–16 (1994)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carlisle, M.C., Lloyd, E.L.: On the k-coloring of intervals. Discrete Appliled Mathematics 59(3), 225–235 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Epstein, L., Levin, A.: Improved randomized results for the interval selection problem. Theoretical Computer Science 411(34-36), 3129–3135 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalyanasundaram, B., Pruhs, K.: Speed is as powerful as clairvoyance. Journal of the ACM 47(4), 617–643 (2000)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koo, C., Lam, T.W., Ngan, T., Sadakane, K., To, K.: On-line scheduling with tight deadlines. Theoretical Computer Science 295, 251–261 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seiden, S.S.: Randomized online interval scheduling. Operations Research Letters 22(4-5), 171–177 (1998)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leah Epstein
    • 1
  • Łukasz Jeż
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jiří Sgall
    • 4
  • Rob van Stee
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of WrocławWrocławPoland
  3. 3.Institute of MathematicsAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPraha 1Czech Republic
  4. 4.Faculty of Mathematics and PhysicsComputer Science Institute of Charles UniversityPraha 1Czech Republic
  5. 5.Max Planck Institute for InformaticsSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations