skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Dynamic Weighted Fairness with Minimal Disruptions

Published:27 May 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In this paper, we consider the following dynamic fair allocation problem: Given a sequence of job arrivals and departures, the goal is to maintain an approximately fair allocation of the resource against a target fair allocation policy, while minimizing the total number of \em disruptions, which is the number of times the allocation of any job is changed. We consider a rich class of fair allocation policies that significantly generalize those considered in previous work. We first consider the models where jobs only arrive, or jobs only depart. We present tight upper and lower bounds for the number of disruptions required to maintain a constant approximate fair allocation every time step. In particular, for the canonical case where jobs have weights and the resource allocation is proportional to the job's weight, we show that maintaining a constant approximate fair allocation requires Θ(łog^* n) disruptions per job, almost matching the bounds in prior work for the unit weight case. For the more general setting where the allocation policy only decreases the allocation to a job when new jobs arrive, we show that maintaining a constant approximate fair allocation requires Θ(łog n) disruptions per job. We then consider the model where jobs can both arrive and depart. We first show strong lower bounds on the number of disruptions required to maintain constant approximate fairness for arbitrary instances. In contrast we then show that there there is an algorithm that can maintain constant approximate fairness with $O(1)$ expected disruptions per job if the weights of the jobs are independent of the jobs arrival and departure order. We finally show how our results can be extended to the setting with multiple resources.

References

  1. Gerdus Benade, Aleksandr M. Kazachkov, Ariel D. Procaccia, and Christos-Alexandros Psomas. How to make envy vanish over time. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, Ithaca, NY, USA, June 18--22, 2018, pages 593--610, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Arka A. Bhattacharya, David Culler, Eric Friedman, Ali Ghodsi, Scott Shenker, and Ion Stoica. Hierarchical scheduling for diverse datacenter workloads. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Cloud Computing, SOCC '13, pages 4:1--4:15, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bryan L. Deuermeyer, Donald K. Friesen, and Michael A. Langston. Scheduling to maximize the minimum processor finish time in a multiprocessor system. SIAM Journal on Algebraic Discrete Methods, 3(2):190--196, 1982.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Danny Dolev, Dror G. Feitelson, Joseph Y. Halpern, Raz Kupferman, and Nathan Linial. No justified complaints: On fair sharing of multiple resources. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ITCS '12, pages 68--75, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Jeff Edmonds and Kirk Pruhs. Scalably scheduling processes with arbitrary speedup curves. In ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 685--692, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Rupert Freeman, Seyed Majid Zahedi, and Vincent Conitzer. Fair and efficient social choice in dynamic settings. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-17, pages 4580--4587, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Eric Friedman, Ali Ghodsi, and Christos-Alexandros Psomas. Strategyproof allocation of discrete jobs on multiple machines. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC '14, pages 529--546, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Eric Friedman, Christos-Alexandros Psomas, and Shai Vardi. Dynamic fair division with minimal disruptions. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC '15, pages 697--713, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Eric Friedman, Christos-Alexandros Psomas, and Shai Vardi. Controlled dynamic fair division. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC '17, pages 461--478, New York, NY, USA, 2017. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Ali Ghodsi, Matei Zaharia, Benjamin Hindman, Andy Konwinski, Scott Shenker, and Ion Stoica. Dominant resource fairness: Fair allocation of multiple resource types. In Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, NSDI'11, pages 323--336, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2011. USENIX Association.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. R. L. Graham. Bounds on multiprocessing timing anomalies. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 17(2):416--429, 1969.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Aanund Hylland and Richard Zeckhauser. The efficient allocation of individuals to positions. Journal of Political Economy, 87(2):293--314, 1979.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Sungjin Im, Janardhan Kulkarni, and Kamesh Munagala. Competitive algorithms from competitive equilibria: Non-clairvoyant scheduling under polyhedral constraints. In Proceedings of the Forty-sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '14, pages 313--322, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Michael Isard, Vijayan Prabhakaran, Jon Currey, Udi Wieder, Kunal Talwar, and Andrew Goldberg. Quincy: Fair scheduling for distributed computing clusters. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 22Nd Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP '09, pages 261--276, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ian Kash, Ariel D. Procaccia, and Nisarg Shah. No agent left behind: Dynamic fair division of multiple resources. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, AAMAS '13, pages 351--358, Richland, SC, 2013. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Bo Li, Wenyang Li, and Yingkai Li. Dynamic fair division problem with general valuations. In Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI'18, pages 375--381. AAAI Press, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Bo Li and Yingkai Li. Dynamic fair division problem with general valuations. CoRR, abs/1802.05294, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Dejan S. Milo'jivciç, Fred Douglis, Yves Paindaveine, Richard Wheeler, and Songnian Zhou. Process migration. ACM Comput. Surv., 32(3):241--299, September 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. David C. Parkes, Ariel D. Procaccia, and Nisarg Shah. Beyond dominant resource fairness: Extensions, limitations, and indivisibilities. ACM Trans. Econ. Comput., 3(1):3:1--3:22, March 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Malte Schwarzkopf, Andy Konwinski, Michael Abd-El-Malek, and John Wilkes. Omega: flexible, scalable schedulers for large compute clusters. 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Hal R Varian. Equity, envy, and efficiency. Journal of Economic Theory, 9(1):63 -- 91, 1974.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Abhishek Verma, Luis Pedrosa, Madhukar Korupolu, David Oppenheimer, Eric Tune, and John Wilkes. Large-scale cluster management at google with borg. In Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Computer Systems, EuroSys '15, pages 18:1--18:17, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. T. Walsh. Online Cake Cutting (published version). ArXiv e-prints, June 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. W. Wang, B. Li, and B. Liang. Dominant resource fairness in cloud computing systems with heterogeneous servers. In IEEE INFOCOM 2014 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, pages 583--591, April 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. S. M. Zahedi and B. C. Lee. Sharing incentives and fair division for multiprocessors. IEEE Micro, 35(3):92--100, May 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Dynamic Weighted Fairness with Minimal Disruptions

        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

        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)46
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

          Other Metrics

        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!