ISAAC 2013: Algorithms and Computation pp 218-228 | Cite as
Better Bounds for Online k-Frame Throughput Maximization in Network Switches
Abstract
We consider a variant of the online buffer management problem in network switches, called the k-frame throughput maximization problem (k-FTM). This problem models the situation where a large frame is fragmented into k packets and transmitted through the Internet, and the receiver can reconstruct the frame only if he/she accepts all the k packets. Kesselman et al. introduced this problem and showed that its competitive ratio is unbounded even when k = 2. They also introduced an “order-respecting” variant of k-FTM, called k-OFTM, where inputs are restricted in some natural way. They proposed an online algorithm and showed that its competitive ratio is at most \(\frac{ 2kB }{ \lfloor B/k \rfloor } + k\) for any B ≥ k, where B is the size of the buffer. They also gave a lower bound of \(\frac{ B }{ \lfloor 2B/k \rfloor }\) for deterministic online algorithms when 2B ≥ k and k is a power of 2.
In this paper, we improve upper and lower bounds on the competitive ratio of k-OFTM. Our main result is to improve an upper bound of O(k 2) by Kesselman et al. to \(\frac{5B + \lfloor B/k \rfloor - 4}{\lfloor B/2k \rfloor} = O(k)\) for B ≥ 2k. Note that this upper bound is tight up to a multiplicative constant factor since the lower bound given by Kesselman et al. is Ω(k). We also give two lower bounds. First we give a lower bound of \(\frac{2B}{\lfloor{B/(k-1)} \rfloor} + 1\) on the competitive ratio of deterministic online algorithms for any k ≥ 2 and any B ≥ k − 1, which improves the previous lower bound of \(\frac{B}{ \lfloor 2B/k \rfloor }\) by a factor of almost four. Next, we present the first nontrivial lower bound on the competitive ratio of randomized algorithms. Specifically, we give a lower bound of k − 1 against an oblivious adversary for any k ≥ 3 and any B. Since a deterministic algorithm, as mentioned above, achieves an upper bound of about 10k, this indicates that randomization does not help too much.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Aiello, W., Mansour, Y., Rajagopolan, S., Rosén, A.: Competitive queue policies for differentiated services. Journal of Algorithms 55(2), 113–141 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 2.Albers, S., Schmidt, M.: On the performance of greedy algorithms in packet buffering. SIAM Journal on Computing 35(2), 278–304 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 3.Andelman, N.: Randomized queue management for DiffServ. In: In Proc. of the 17th ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, pp. 1–10 (2005)Google Scholar
- 4.Andelman, N., Mansour, Y.: Competitive management of non-preemptive queues with multiple values. In: Fich, F.E. (ed.) DISC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2848, pp. 166–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Andelman, N., Mansour, Y., Zhu, A.: Competitive queueing policies for QoS switches. In: Proc. of the 14th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 761–770 (2003)Google Scholar
- 6.Azar, Y., Litichevskey, A.: Maximizing throughput in multi-queue switches. Algorithmica 45(1), 69–90 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 7.Azar, Y., Richter, Y.: Management of multi-queue switches in QoS networks. Algorithmica 43(1-2), 81–96 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 8.Azar, Y., Richter, Y.: An improved algorithm for CIOQ switches. ACM Transactions on Algorithms 2(2), 282–295 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Bienkowski, M.: An optimal lower bound for buffer management in multi-queue switches. In: Proc. of the 16th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 1295–1305 (2010)Google Scholar
- 10.Borodin, A., El-Yaniv, R.: Online computation and competitive analysis. Cambridge University Press (1998)Google Scholar
- 11.Emek, Y., Halldórsson, M., Mansour, Y., Patt-Shamir, B., Radhakrishnan, J., Rawitz, D.: Online set packing and competitive scheduling of multi-part tasks. In: Proc. of the 29th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 440–449 (2010)Google Scholar
- 12.Englert, M., Westermann, M.: Lower and upper bounds on FIFO buffer management in QoS switches. In: Azar, Y., Erlebach, T. (eds.) ESA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4168, pp. 352–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Goldwasser, M.: A survey of buffer management policies for packet switches. ACM SIGACT News 41(1), 100–128 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Hahne, E., Kesselman, A., Mansour, Y.: Competitive buffer management for shared-memory switches. In: Proc. of the 13th ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, pp. 53–58 (2001)Google Scholar
- 15.Halldórsson, M., Patt-Shamir, B., Rawitz, D.: Online Scheduling with Interval Conflicts. In: Proc. of the 28th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, pp. 472–483 (2011)Google Scholar
- 16.Kawahara, J., Kobayashi, K.M.: Optimal Buffer Management for 2-Frame Throughput Maximization. In: Proc. of the 20th International Colloquium on Structural Information and Communication Complexity (2013)Google Scholar
- 17.Kawahara, J., Kobayashi, K.M., Miyazaki, S.: Better Bounds for Online k-Frame Throughput Maximization in Network Switches. arXiv:1309.4919 [cs.DS] (2013)Google Scholar
- 18.Kesselman, A., Lotker, Z., Mansour, Y., Patt-Shamir, B., Schieber, B., Sviridenko, M.: Buffer overflow management in QoS switches. SIAM Journal on Computing 33(3), 563–583 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 19.Kesselman, A., Mansour, Y.: Harmonic buffer management policy for shared memory switches. Theoretical Computer Science 324(2-3), 161–182 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 20.Kesselman, A., Mansour, Y., van Stee, R.: Improved competitive guarantees for QoS buffering. In: Di Battista, G., Zwick, U. (eds.) ESA 2003. LNCS, vol. 2832, pp. 361–372. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Kesselman, A., Rosén, A.: Scheduling policies for CIOQ switches. Journal of Algorithms 60(1), 60–83 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 22.Kesselman, A., Rosén, A.: Controlling CIOQ switches with priority queuing and in multistage interconnection networks. Journal of Interconnection Networks 9(1/2), 53–72 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Kesselman, A., Kogan, K., Segal, M.: Packet mode and QoS algorithms for buffered crossbar switches with FIFO queuing. In: Proc. of the 27th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 335–344 (2008)Google Scholar
- 24.Kesselman, A., Kogan, K., Segal, M.: Best effort and priority queuing policies for buffered crossbar switches. In: Shvartsman, A.A., Felber, P. (eds.) SIROCCO 2008. LNCS, vol. 5058, pp. 170–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Kesselman, A., Kogan, K., Segal, M.: Improved competitive performance bounds for CIOQ switches. In: Halperin, D., Mehlhorn, K. (eds.) ESA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5193, pp. 577–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Kesselman, A., Patt-Shamir, B., Scalosub, G.: Competitive buffer management with packet dependencies. In: Proc. of the 23rd IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, pp. 1–12 (2009)Google Scholar
- 27.Kobayashi, K., Miyazaki, S., Okabe, Y.: A tight bound on online buffer management for two-port shared-memory switches. In: Proc. of the 19th ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, pp. 358–364 (2007)Google Scholar
- 28.Kobayashi, K., Miyazaki, S., Okabe, Y.: Competitive buffer management for multi-queue switches in QoS networks using packet buffering algorithms. In: Proc. of the 21st ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, pp. 328–336 (2009)Google Scholar
- 29.Mansour, Y., Patt-Shamir, B., Rawitz, D.: Overflow management with multipart packets. In: Proc. of the 31st IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, pp. 2606–2614 (2011)Google Scholar
- 30.Mansour, Y., Patt-Shamir, B., Rawitz, D.: Competitive router scheduling with structured data. In: Solis-Oba, R., Persiano, G. (eds.) WAOA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7164, pp. 219–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Scalosub, G., Marbach, P., Liebeherr, J.: Buffer management for aggregated streaming data with packet dependencies. In: Proc. of the 29th IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, pp. 1–5 (2010)Google Scholar
- 32.Sleator, D., Tarjan, R.: Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules. Communications of the ACM 28(2), 202–208 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Sviridenko, M.: A lower bound for online algorithms in the FIFO model (2001) (unpublished manuscript)Google Scholar