skip to main content
research-article

An Optimal Randomized Online Algorithm for QoS Buffer Management

Published:19 December 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The QoS (Quality of Service) buffer management problem, with significant and diverse computer applications, e.g., in online cloud resource allocation problems, is a classic online admission control problem in the presence of resource constraints. In its basic setting, packets with different values according to their QoS requirements, arrive in online fashion to a switching node with limited buffer size. Then, the switch needs to make an immediate decision to either admit or reject the incoming packet based on the value of the packet and its buffer availability. The objective is to maximize the cumulative profit of the admitted packets, while respecting the buffer constraint. Even though the QoS buffer management problem was proposed more than a decade ago, no optimal online solution has been proposed in the literature. This paper contributes to this problem by proposing: 1) A fixed threshold-based online algorithm with smaller competitive ratio than the existing results; 2) an optimal deterministic online algorithm under fractional admission model in which a packet could be admitted partially; and 3) an optimal randomized online algorithm for the general problem. We consider the last result being the main contribution of this paper.

References

  1. W Aiello, Y Mansour, S Rajagopolan, and A Rosén. 2000. Competitive queue policies for differentiated services. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM). 431--440.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. M Ajtai, N Megiddo, and OWaarts. 2001. Improved algorithms and analysis for secretary problems and generalizations. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics 14, 1 (2001), 1--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. May Al-Roomi, Shaikha Al-Ebrahim, Sabika Buqrais, and Imtiaz Ahmad. 2013. Cloud computing pricing models: a survey. International Journal of Grid and Distributed Computing 6, 5 (2013), 93--106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. N. Andelman. 2005. Randomized qeue management for DiffServ. In Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA). 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. N. Andelman and Y. Mansour. 2003. Competitive management of non-preemptive queues with multiple values. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC). 166--180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. N. Andelman, Y. Mansour, and A. Zhu. 2003. Competitive queueing policies for QoS switches. In Proceedings of ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). 761--770. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Y. Azar and Y. Richter. 2005. Management of multi-queue switches in QoS networks. Algorithmica 43, 1--2 (2005), 81--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M Babaioff, N Immorlica, D Kempe, and R Kleinberg. 2007. A knapsack secretary problem with applications. Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques (2007), 16--28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. H Böckenhauer, D Komm, R Královič, and P Rossmanith. 2014. The online knapsack problem: Advice and randomization. Theoretical Computer Science 527 (2014), 61--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. A. Borodin and R El-Yaniv. 1998. Online computation and competitive analysis. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. P. Chuprikov, S. Nikolenko, and K. Kogan. 2015. Priority queueing with multiple packet characteristics. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM). 1418--1426.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. R El-Yaniv, A Fiat, R Karp, and G Turpin. 1992. Competitive analysis of financial games. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). 327--333. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. R. El-Yaniv, A. Fiat, R. M. Karp, and G Turpin. 2001. Optimal search and one-way trading online algorithms. Algorithmica 30, 1 (2001), 101--139.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. M Englert and Westermann M. 2012. Considering suppressed packets improves buffer management in quality of service switches. SIAM J. Comput. 41, 5 (2012), 1166--1192.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. M. Englert and M. Westermann. 2009. Lower and upper bounds on FIFO buffer management in QoS switches. Algorithmica 53, 4 (2009), 523--548.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Moran Feldman and Joseph Seffi Naor. 2017. Non-preemptive buffer management for latency sensitive packets. Journal of Scheduling 20, 4 (2017), 337--353. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A Fiat, Y Mansour, H Yi, and U Nadav. 2008. Competitive queue management for latency sensitive packets. In Proceedings of ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete algorithms (SODA). 228--237. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. P R Freeman. 1983. The secretary problem and its extensions: A review. International Statistical Review (1983), 189--206.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. M. Goldwasser. 2010. A survey of buffer management policies for packet switches. ACM SIGACT News 41, 1 (2010), 100--128. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A Kesselman, Z Lotker, Y Mansour, B Patt-Shamir, and B Schieber. 2004. Buffer overflow management in QoS switches. SIAM J. Comput. 33, 3 (2004), 563--583. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Kesselman and Y. Mansour. 2001. Loss-bounded analysis for differentiated services. In Proceedings of ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete algorithms (SODA). 591--600. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. K. Kobayashi, S. Miyazaki, and Y. Okabe. 2009. Competitive buffer management for multi-queue switches in QoS networks using packet buffering algorithms. In Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA). 328--336. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. J. Lorenz, K. Panagiotou, and A Steger. 2009. Optimal algorithms for k-search with application in option pricing. Algorithmica 55, 2 (2009), 311--328. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Z. Lotker and B. Patt-Shamir. 2002. Nearly optimal FIFO buffer management for DiffServ. In Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 134--143. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Y. Mansour, B. Patt-Shamir, and O. Lapid. 2000. Optimal smoothing schedules for real-time streams. In Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 21--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. S Moharir, S Sanghavi, and S Shakkottai. 2013. Online load balancing under graph constraints. In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 41. 363--364. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. E. Mohr, I. Ahmad, and G. Schmidt. 2014. Online algorithms for conversion problems: a survey. Surveys in Operations Research and Management Science 19, 2 (2014), 87--104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. W Shi, L Zhang, C Wu, Z Li, and F Lau. 2014. An online auction framework for dynamic resource provisioning in cloud computing. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review 42, 1 (2014), 71--83. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. L Yang, M H Hajiesmaili, H Yi, and M Chen. 2017. Hour-Ahead Offering Strategies in Electricity Market for Power Producers with Storage and Intermittent Supply. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS/International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems. 21--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Zijun Zhang, Zongpeng Li, and Chuan Wu. 2017. Optimal Posted Prices for Online Cloud Resource Allocation. Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems 1, 1 (2017), 23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Yunhong Zhou, Deeparnab Chakrabarty, and Rajan Lukose. 2008. Budget constrained bidding in keyword auctions and online knapsack problems. In International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics. 566--576. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. A. Zhu. 2004. Analysis of queueing policies in QoS switches. Journal of Algorithms 53, 2 (2004), 137--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. An Optimal Randomized Online Algorithm for QoS Buffer Management

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!