Buffer Management for Packets with Processing Times

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9294)

Abstract

We discuss the well known job scheduling problem with release times and deadlines, alongside an extended model - buffer management for packets with processing requirements. For job scheduling, an \(\Omega(\sqrt{\frac{\log{\kappa}}{\log{\log{\kappa}}}})\) lower bound for any randomized preemptive algorithm was shown by Irani and Canetti (1995), where κ is the the maximum job duration or the maximum job value (the minimum is assumed to be 1). The proof of this well-known result is fairly elaborate and involved. In contrast, we show a significantly improved lower bound of Ω(logκ) using a simple proof. Our result matches the easy upper bound and closes a gap which was supposedly open for 20 years.

We also discuss an interesting extension of job scheduling (for tight jobs). We discuss the problem of handling a FIFO buffer of a limited capacity, where packets arrive over time and may be preempted. Most of the work in buffer management considers the case where each packet has unit processing requirement. We consider a model where packets require some number of processing cycles before they can be transmitted. We aim to maximize the value of transmitted packets. We show an \(\Omega(\frac{\log{\kappa}}{\log{\log{\kappa}}})\) lower bound on the competitive ratio of randomized algorithms in this setting. We also present bounds for several special cases. For packets with unit values we also show a ϕ ≈ 1.618 lower bound on the competitive ratio of deterministic algorithms, and a 2-competitive algorithm for this problem. For the case of packets with constant densities we present a 4-competitive algorithm.

Keywords

Competitive analysis buffer management job scheduling online algorithms deadlines 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aiello, W.A., Mansour, Y., Rajagopolan, S., Rosén, A.: Competitive queue policies for differential services. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, pp. 431–440 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 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. 3.
    Azar, Y., Litichevskey, A.: Maximizing throughput in multi-queue switches. In: Albers, S., Radzik, T. (eds.) ESA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3221, pp. 53–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Azar, Y., Richter, Y.: An improved algorithm for cioq switches. ACM Transactions on Algorithms 2(2), 282–295 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Canetti, R., Irani, S.: Bounding the power of preemption in randomized scheduling. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 606–615. ACM (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chuprikov, P., Nikolenko, S., Kogan, K.: Priority queueing with multiple packet characteristics (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    DasGupta, B., Palis, M.A.: Online real-time preemptive scheduling of jobs with deadlines. In: Jansen, K., Khuller, S. (eds.) APPROX 2000. LNCS, vol. 1913, pp. 96–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Englert, M., Westermann, M.: Considering suppressed packets improves buffer management in qos switches. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 209–218. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garay, J.A., Naor, J., Yener, B., Zhao, P.: On-line admission control and packet scheduling with interleaving. In: Proceedings of 21st Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, vol. 1, pp. 94–103. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldwasser, M.: A survey of buffer management policies for packet switches. ACM SIGACT News 41(1), 100–128 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalyanasundaram, B., Pruhs, K.: Speed is as powerful as clairvoyance. Journal of the ACM 47(4), 617–643 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kesselman, A., Kogan, K., Segal, M.: Packet mode and qos algorithms for buffered crossbar switches with fifo queuing. Distributed Computing 23(3), 163–175 (2010)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kesselman, A., Kogan, K., Segal, M.: Improved competitive performance bounds for cioq switches. Algorithmica 63(1-2), 411–424 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Kesselman, A., Patt-Shamir, B., Scalosub, G.: Competitive buffer management with packet dependencies. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Parallel & Distributed Processing, pp. 1–12. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kogan, K., López-Ortiz, A., Nikolenko, S., Sirotkin, A.: Multi-queued network processors for packets with heterogeneous processing requirements. In: 5th International Conference on Communication Systems and Networks, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kogan, K., López-Ortiz, A., Nikolenko, S., Sirotkin, A.V., et al.: A taxonomy of semi-fifo policies. In: IEEE 31st International Performance Computing and Communications Conference (IPCCC), pp. 295–304. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kogan, K., Nikolenko, S.: Single and multiple buffer processing (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kogan, K., Nikolenko, S., López-Ortiz, A., Scalosub, G., Segal, M.: Balancing work and size with bounded buffers. In: COMSNETS, pp. 1–8 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koren, G., Shasha, D.: D over; an optimal on-line scheduling algorithm for overloaded real-time systems. In: Real-Time Systems Symposium, pp. 290–299. IEEE (1992)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mansour, Y., Patt-Shamir, B., Lapid, O.: Optimal smoothing schedules for real-time streams. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 21–29. ACM (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mansour, Y., Patt-Shamir, B., Rawitz, D.: Overflow management with multipart packets. Computer Networks 56(15), 3456–3467 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pruhs, K.: Competitive online scheduling for server systems. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review 34(4), 52–58 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pruhs, K., Sgall, J., Torng, E.: Online scheduling. In: Handbook of Scheduling: Algorithms, Models, and Performance Analysis, pp. 115–124 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Blavatnik School of Computer ScienceTel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations