Robust Algorithms for Preemptive Scheduling

  • Leah Epstein
  • Asaf Levin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6942)


Preemptive scheduling problems on parallel machines are classic problems. Given the goal of minimizing the makespan, they are polynomially solvable even for the most general model of unrelated machines. In these problems, a set of jobs is to be assigned to be executed on a set of m machines. A job can be split into parts arbitrarily and these parts are to be assigned to time slots on the machines without parallelism, that is, for every job, at most one of its parts can be processed at each time.

Motivated by sensitivity analysis and online algorithms, we investigate the problem of designing robust algorithms for constructing preemptive schedules. Robust algorithms receive one piece of input at a time. They may change a small portion of the solution as an additional part of the input is revealed. The capacity of change is based on the size of the new input. For scheduling problems, the maximum ratio between the total size of the jobs (or parts of jobs) which may be re-scheduled upon the arrival of a new job j, and the size of j, is called migration factor.

We design a strongly optimal algorithm with the migration factor \(1-\frac 1m\) for identical machines. Such algorithms avoid idle time and create solutions where the (non-increasingly) sorted vector of completion times of the machines is minimal lexicographically. In the case of identical machines this results not only in makespan minimization, but the created solution is also optimal with respect to any ℓ p norm (for p > 1). We show that an algorithm of a smaller migration factor cannot be optimal with respect to makespan or any other norm, thus the result is best possible in this sense as well. We further show that neither uniformly related machines nor identical machines with restricted assignment admit an optimal algorithm with a constant migration factor. This lower bound holds both for makespan minimization and for any ℓ p norm. Finally, we analyze the case of two machines and show that in this case it is still possible to maintain an optimal schedule with a small migration factor in the cases of two uniformly related machines and two identical machines with restricted assignment.


Time Slot Completion Time Optimal Schedule Idle Time Robust Algorithm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alon, N., Azar, Y., Woeginger, G.J., Yadid, T.: Approximation schemes for scheduling. In: Proc. 8th Symp. on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp. 493–500. ACM/SIAM (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aspnes, J., Azar, Y., Fiat, A., Plotkin, S., Waarts, O.: On-line load balancing with applications to machine scheduling and virtual circuit routing. Journal of the ACM 44(3), 486–504 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azar, Y., Naor, J., Rom, R.: The competitiveness of on-line assignments. Journal of Algorithms 18(2), 221–237 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berman, P., Charikar, M., Karpinski, M.: On-line load balancing for related machines. Journal of Algorithms 35, 108–121 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caprara, A., Kellerer, H., Pferschy, U.: Approximation schemes for ordered vector packing problems. Naval Research Logistics 92, 58–69 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, B., van Vliet, A., Woeginger, G.J.: An optimal algorithm for preemptive on-line scheduling. Operations Research Letters 18, 127–131 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Correa, J.R., Skutella, M., Verschae, J.: The power of preemption on unrelated machines and applications to scheduling orders. In: Dinur, I., Jansen, K., Naor, J., Rolim, J. (eds.) APPROX 2009. LNCS, vol. 5687, pp. 84–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dósa, G., Epstein, L.: Preemptive online scheduling with reordering. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics 25(1), 21–49 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ebenlendr, T., Jawor, W., Sgall, J.: Preemptive online scheduling: optimal algorithms for all speeds. Algorithmica 53(4), 504–522 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ebenlendr, T., Sgall, J.: Optimal and online preemptive scheduling on uniformly related machines. Journal of Scheduling 12(5), 517–527 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Englert, M., Özmen, D., Westermann, M.: The power of reordering for online minimum makespan scheduling. In: Proc. 48th Symp. Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 603–612 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Epstein, L.: Optimal preemptive on-line scheduling on uniform processors with non-decreasing speed ratios. Operations Research Letters 29(2), 93–98 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Epstein, L., Levin, A.: A robust APTAS for the classical bin packing problem. Mathemtical Programming 119(1), 33–49 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Epstein, L., Levin, A.: AFPTAS results for common variants of bin packing: A new method for handling the small items. SIAM Journal on Optimization 20(6), 3121–3145 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Epstein, L., Levin, A.: Robust approximation schemes for cube packing (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Epstein, L., Noga, J., Seiden, S.S., Sgall, J., Woeginger, G.J.: Randomized online scheduling on two uniform machines. Journal of Scheduling 4(2), 71–92 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Epstein, L., Sgall, J.: A lower bound for on-line scheduling on uniformly related machines. Operations Research Letters 26(1), 17–22 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Epstein, L., Tassa, T.: Optimal preemptive scheduling for general target functions. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 72(1), 132–162 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fleischer, R., Wahl, M.: Online scheduling revisited. Journal of Scheduling 3(5), 343–353 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gonzales, T.F., Sahni, S.: Preemptive scheduling of uniform processor systems. Journal of the ACM 25, 92–101 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Graham, R.L.: Bounds for certain multiprocessing anomalies. Bell System Technical Journal 45, 1563–1581 (1966)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Horvath, E.C., Lam, S., Sethi, R.: A level algorithm for preemptive scheduling. Journal of the ACM 24(1), 32–43 (1977)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lawler, E.L., Labetoulle, J.: On preemptive scheduling of unrelated parallel processors by linear programming. Journal of the ACM 25(4), 612–619 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lenstra, J.K., Shmoys, D.B., Tardos, E.: Approximation algorithms for scheduling unrelated parallel machines. Math. Program. 46, 259–271 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liu, J.W.S., Liu, C.L.: Bounds on scheduling algorithms for heterogeneous computing systems. In: Rosenfeld, J.L. (ed.) Proceedings of IFIP Congress 1974. Information Processing, vol. 74, pp. 349–353 (1974)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu, J.W.S., Yang, A.T.: Optimal scheduling of independent tasks on heterogeneous computing systems. In: Proceedings of the ACM National Conference, vol. 1, pp. 38–45. ACM, New York (1974)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McNaughton, R.: Scheduling with deadlines and loss functions. Management Science 6, 1–12 (1959)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Muntz, R.R., Coffman Jr., E.G.: Optimal preemptive scheduling on two-processor systems. IEEE Transactions on Computers 18(11), 1014–1020 (1969)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Muntz, R.R., Coffman Jr., E.G.: Preemptive scheduling of real-time tasks on multiprocessor systems. Journal of the ACM 17(2), 324–338 (1970)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sanders, P., Sivadasan, N., Skutella, M.: Online scheduling with bounded migration. Mathematics of Operations Research 34(2), 481–498 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sgall, J.: A lower bound for randomized on-line multiprocessor scheduling. Information Processing Letters 63(1), 51–55 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shachnai, H., Tamir, T., Woeginger, G.J.: Minimizing makespan and preemption costs on a system of uniform machines. Algorithmica 42(3-4), 309–334 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Skutella, M., Verschae, J.: A robust PTAS for machine covering and packing. In: de Berg, M., Meyer, U. (eds.) ESA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6346, pp. 36–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wen, J., Du, D.: Preemptive on-line scheduling for two uniform processors. Operations Research Letters 23, 113–116 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leah Epstein
    • 1
  • Asaf Levin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Faculty of Industrial Engineering and ManagementThe TechnionHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations