An Online Algorithm Optimally Self-tuning to Congestion for Power Management Problems
We consider the classical power management problem: There is a device which has two states ON and OFF and one has to develop a control algorithm for changing between these states as to minimize (energy) cost when given a sequence of service requests. Although an optimal 2-competitive algorithm exists, that algorithm does not have good performance in many practical situations, especially in case the device is not used frequently. To take the frequency of device usage into account, we construct an algorithm based on the concept of “slackness degree.” Then by relaxing the worst case competitive ratio of our online algorithm to 2 + ε, where ε is an arbitrary small constant, we make the algorithm flexible to slackness. The algorithm thus automatically tunes itself to slackness degree and gives better performance than the optimal 2-competitive algorithm for real world inputs. In addition to worst case competitive ratio analysis, a queueing model analysis is given and computer simulations are reported, confirming that the performance of the algorithm is high.
KeywordsSwitching Cost Competitive Ratio Online Algorithm Busy Period Sleep Mode
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Augustine, J., Irani, S., Swamy, C.: Optimal power-down strategies. In: Proc. 45th Symp. Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 530–539. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
- 6.Chung, E., Benini, L., Bogliolo, A.: Dynamic power management for non-stationary service requests. In: Proceedings of the Design and Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition, pp. 77–81 (1999)Google Scholar
- 7.Eggers, S.J., Katz, R.H.: Evaluating the performance of four snooping cache coherency protocols. In: Proc. 16th International Symp. on Computer Architecture (ISCA). IEEE (1989)Google Scholar
- 8.Irani, S., Gupta, R., Shukla, S.: Competitive analysis of dynamic power management strategies for systems with multiple power savings states. In: DATE 2002: Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe, p. 117. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Irani, S., Pruhs, K.R.: Algorithmic problems in power management. ACM SIGACT News (2005)Google Scholar
- 10.Karlin, A.R., Kenyon, C., Randall, D.: Dynamic tcp acknowledgement and other stories about e/(e − 1). In: Proc. 33rd STOC, pp. 502–509. ACM (2001)Google Scholar
- 13.Kenyon, C.: Best-fit bin-packing with random order. In: Proc. 7th Symp. on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp. 359–364. ACM/SIAM (1996)Google Scholar
- 15.Lotker, Z., Patt-Shamir, B., Rawitz, D.: Rent, lease or buy: Randomized algorithms for multislope ski rental. In: Albers, S., Weil, P. (eds.) 25th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2008). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), vol. 1, pp. 503–514. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
- 17.Phillips, S., Westbrook, J.: Competitive analysis and beyond. In: Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook, ch.10. CRC Press (1999)Google Scholar
- 18.Ramanathan, D., Irani, S., Gupta, R.: Latency effects of system level power management algorithms. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Aided Design (2000)Google Scholar
- 19.Wolff, R.W.: Stochastic modeling and the theory of queues. Prentice-Hall (1989)Google Scholar