skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

The PDE Method for the Analysis of Randomized Load Balancing Networks

Published:19 December 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We introduce a new framework for the analysis of large-scale load balancing networks with general service time distributions, motivated by applications in server farms, distributed memory machines, cloud computing and communication systems. For a parallel server network using the so-called $SQ(d)$ load balancing routing policy, we use a novel representation for the state of the system and identify its fluid limit, when the number of servers goes to infinity and the arrival rate per server tends to a constant. The fluid limit is characterized as the unique solution to a countable system of coupled partial differential equations (PDE), which serve to approximate transient Quality of Service parameters such as the expected virtual waiting time and queue length distribution. In the special case when the service time distribution is exponential, our method recovers the well-known ordinary differential equation characterization of the fluid limit.

Furthermore, we develop a numerical scheme to solve the PDE, and demonstrate the efficacy of the PDE approximation by comparing it with Monte Carlo simulations. We also illustrate how the PDE can be used to gain insight into the performance of large networks in practical scenarios by analyzing relaxation times in a backlogged network. In particular, our numerical approximation of the PDE uncovers two interesting properties of relaxation times under the SQ(2) algorithm. Firstly, when the service time distribution is Pareto with unit mean, the relaxation time decreases as the tail becomes heavier. This is a priori counterintuitive given that for the Pareto distribution, heavier tails have been shown to lead to worse tail behavior in equilibrium. Secondly, for unit mean light-tailed service distributions such as the Weibull and lognormal, the relaxation time decreases as the variance increases. This is in contrast to the behavior observed under random routing, where the relaxation time increases with increase in variance.

References

  1. Aghajani, R. and Ramanan, K. (2017). Hydrodynamic limit of a randomized load balancing network. arXiv:1707.02005 {math.PR}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Asmussen, S. (2003). Applied Probability and Queues. Springer-Verlag, 2nd edition edition.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Azar, Y., Broder, A. Z., Karlin, A. R., and Upfal, E. (1999). Balanced allocations. SIAM J. Comput., 29(1):180--200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Billingsley, P. (1968). Convergence of Probability Measures. John Wiley, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bramson, M., Lu, Y., and Prabhakar, B. (2010). Randomized load balancing with general service time distributions. SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev., 38(1):275--286. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bramson, M., Lu, Y., and Prabhakar, B. (2012). Asymptotic independence of queues under randomized load balancing. Queueing Systems, 71(3):247--292. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Bramson, M., Lu, Y., and Prabhakar, B. (2013). Decay of tails at equilibrium for FIFO join the shortest queue networks. The Annals of Applied Probability, 23(5):1841--1878.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Brown, L., Gans, N., Mandelbaum, A., Sakov, A., Shen, H., Zeltyn, S., and Zhao, L. (2005). Statistical analysis of a telephone call center. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(469):36--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Chen, S., Sun, Y., Kozat, U., Huang, L., Sinha, P., Liang, G., Liu, X., and Shroff, N. (2014). When queueing meets coding: Optimal-latency data retrieving scheme in storage clouds. In INFOCOM, 2014 Proceedings IEEE, pages 1042--1050.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Courant, R., Isaacson, E., and Rees, M. (1952). On the solution of nonlinear hyperbolic differential equations by finite differences. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 5(3):243--255.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Dai, J., Dieker, A., and Gao, X. (2014). Validity of heavy-traffic steady-state approximations in many-server queues with abandonment. Queueing Systems, 78(1):1--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Ethier, S. and Kurtz, T. (1986). Markov processes: characterization and convergence. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics. Probability and mathematical statistics. Wiley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans, L. (1998). Partial Differential Equations. Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Math. Soc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Farias, V., Moallemi, C., and Prabhakar, B. (2005). Load balancing with migration penalties. In Information Theory, 2005. ISIT 2005. Proceedings. International Symposium on, pages 558--562.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Graham, C. (2000). Chaoticity on path space for a queueing network with selection of the shortest queue among several. Journal of Applied Probability, 37(1):198--211.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Grossmann, C., Roos, H., and Stynes, M. (2007). Numerical Treatment of Partial Differential Equations. Universitext. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kardassakis, K. (2014). Load balancing in stochastic networks: Algorithms, analysis, and game theory. Undergraduate Honors Thesis, Brown University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Kolesar, P. (1984). Stalking the endangered cat: A queueing analysis of congestion at automatic teller machines. Interfaces, 14(6):16--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Liang, G. and Kozat, U. (2014). TOFEC: achieving optimal throughput-delay trade-off of cloud storage using erasure codes. In INFOCOM, 2014 Proceedings IEEE, pages 826--834.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Luczak, M. J. and McDiarmid, C. (2006). On the maximum queue length in the supermarket model. The Annals of Probability, 34(2):493--527.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Luczak, M. J. and Norris, J. (2005). Strong approximation for the supermarket model. The Annals of Applied Probability, 15(3):2038--2061.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Mitzenmacher, M. (2000). Analyses of load stealing models based on families of differential equations. Theory of Computing Systems, 34(1):77--98.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Mitzenmacher, M. (2001). The power of two choices in randomized load balancing. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst., 12(10):1094--1104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Mukherjee, D., Borst, S., van Leeuwaarden, J., and Whiting, P. (2016). Universality of power-of-d load balancing in many-server systems. arXiv:1612.00723 {math.PR}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Seelen, L. (1986). An algorithm for ph/ph/c queues. European Journal of Operational Research, 23(1):118 -- 127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Vvedenskaya, N. D., Dobrushin, R. L., and Karpelevich, F. I. (1996). A queueing system with a choice of the shorter of two queues--an asymptotic approach. Problemy Peredachi Informatsii, 32(1):20--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. The PDE Method for the Analysis of Randomized Load Balancing Networks

            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!