Multiple-Choice Balanced Allocation in (Almost) Parallel

  • Petra Berenbrink
  • Artur Czumaj
  • Matthias Englert
  • Tom Friedetzky
  • Lars Nagel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7408)

Abstract

We consider the problem of resource allocation in a parallel environment where new incoming resources are arriving online in groups or batches.

We study this scenario in an abstract framework of allocating balls into bins. We revisit the allocation algorithm \(\mbox{\sc Greedy} [2]\) due to Azar, Broder, Karlin, and Upfal (SIAM J. Comput. 1999), in which, for sequentially arriving balls, each ball chooses two bins at random, and gets placed into one of those two bins with minimum load. The maximum load of any bin after the last ball is allocated by \(\mbox{\sc Greedy} [2]\) is well understood, as is, indeed, the entire load distribution, for a wide range of settings. The main goal of our paper is to study balls and bins allocation processes in a parallel environment with the balls arriving in batches. In our model, m balls arrive in batches of size n each (with n being also equal to the number of bins), and the balls in each batch are to be distributed among the bins simultaneously. In this setting, we consider an algorithm that uses \(\mbox{\sc Greedy} [2]\) for all balls within a given batch, the answers to those balls’ load queries are with respect to the bin loads at the end of the previous batch, and do not in any way depend on decisions made by other balls from the same batch.

Our main contribution is a tight analysis of the new process allocating balls in batches: we show that after the allocation of any number of batches, the gap between maximum and minimum load is O(logn) with high probability, and is therefore independent of the number of batches used.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adler, M., Berenbrink, P., Schröder, K.: Analyzing an Infinite Parallel Job Allocation Process. In: Bilardi, G., Pietracaprina, A., Italiano, G.F., Pucci, G. (eds.) ESA 1998. LNCS, vol. 1461, pp. 417–428. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adler, M., Chakrabarti, S., Mitzenmacher, M., Rasmussen, L.: Parallel randomized load balancing. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), USA, pp. 238–247 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azar, Y., Broder, A.Z., Karlin, A.R., Upfal, E.: Balanced allocations. SIAM Journal on Computing 29(1), 180–200 (1999)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berenbrink, P., Czumaj, A., Steger, A., Vöcking, B.: Balanced allocations: The heavily loaded case. SIAM Journal on Computing 35(6), 1350–1385 (2006)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Czumaj, A., Stemann, V.: Randomized allocation processes. In: Proceedings of the 38th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 194–203 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dahlin, M.: Interpreting stale load information. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 11(10), 1033–1047 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eager, D.L., Lazowska, E.D., Zahorjan, J.: Adaptive load sharing in homogeneous distributed systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 12, 662–675 (1986)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson, N.L., Kotz, S.: Urn Models and Their Application: An Approach to Modern Discrete Probability Theory. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1977)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karp, R.M., Luby, M., Meyer auf der Heide, F.: Efficient PRAM simulation on a distributed memory machine. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 318–326 (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kolchin, V.F., Sevast’yanov, B.A., Chistyakov, V.P.: Random Allocations. V. H. Winston and Sons, Washington, D.C. (1978)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lenzen, C., Wattenhofer, R.: Tight bounds for parallel randomized load balancing. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 11–20 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mitzenmacher, M.: How useful is old information? IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 11(1), 6–20 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stemann, V.: Parallel balanced allocations. In: Proceedings of the 8th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA), pp. 261–269 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Talwar, K., Wieder, U.: Balanced allocations: The weighted case. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 256–265 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vöcking, B.: How asymmetry helps load balancing. Journal of the ACM 50(4), 568–589 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petra Berenbrink
    • 1
  • Artur Czumaj
    • 2
  • Matthias Englert
    • 2
  • Tom Friedetzky
    • 3
  • Lars Nagel
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Computing ScienceSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  2. 2.DIMAP and Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of WarwickUK
  3. 3.School of Engineering and Computing SciencesDurham UniversityDurhamUK
  4. 4.Zentrum für DatenverarbeitungJohannes Gutenberg Universität MainzGermany

Personalised recommendations