alex kesselman, mpi internet algorithms: design and analysis minicourse, oct. 2004

Alex Kesselman, MPIHigh PerformanceSwitching and RoutingTelecom Center Workshop: Sept 4, 1997.

Internet Algorithms: Design and Analysis

MiniCourse, Oct. 2004

2

Algorithms for Networks

• Networking provides a rich new context for algorithm design

– algorithms are used everywhere in networks– at the end-hosts for packet transmission– in the network: switching, routing, caching, etc.

– many new scenarios – and very stringent constraints

– high speed of operation– large-sized systems– cost of implementation

– require new approaches and techniques

3

Methods

In the networking context– we also need to understand the

“performance” of an algorithm: How well does a network or a component that uses a particular algorithm perform, as perceived by the user?

– performance analysis is concerned with metrics like delay, throughput, loss rates, etc

– metrics of the designer and of the theoretician not necessarily the same

4

Recent Algorithm Design Methods

• Motivated by the desire – for simple implementations– and for robust performance

• Several methods of algorithm design can be used in the networking context

– randomized algorithms– approximation algorithms– online algorithms– distributed algorithms

5

In this Mini Course…

• We will consider a number of problems in networking

• Show various methods for algorithm design and for performance analysis

6

Network Layer Functions

• transport packet from sending to receiving hosts

• network layer protocols in every host, router

important functions:• path determination:

route taken by packets from source to dest.

• switching: move packets from router’s input to appropriate router output

networkdata linkphysical








application

transportnetworkdata linkphysical

application

transportnetworkdata linkphysical

7

The Internet

The Internet Core

Edge Router

Internet Routing Algorithms

High PerformanceSwitching and RoutingTelecom Center Workshop: Sept 4, 1997.

Balaji Prabhakar

9

Network looks like Graph !

10

Routing

Graph abstraction for routing algorithms:

• graph nodes are routers

• graph edges are physical links– link cost: delay, $ cost,

or congestion level

Goal: determine “good” path

(sequence of routers) thru network from source to

dest.

Routing protocol

A

ED

CB

F

2

2

13

1

1

2

53

5

• “good” path:– typically means

minimum cost path– other def’s possible

11

Routing Algorithms Classification

Global or decentralized information?

Global:• all routers have complete

topology, link cost info• “link state” algorithmsDecentralized: • router knows physically-

connected neighbors, link costs to neighbors

• iterative process of info exchange with neighbors

• “distance vector” algorithms

Static or dynamic?Static: • routes change slowly

over timeDynamic: • routes change more

quickly– periodic update– in response to link

cost changes

12

Link-State Routing Algorithms: OSPF

Compute least cost paths from a node to all other nodes using Dijkstra’s algorithm.– advertisement carries one entry per neighbor

router– advertisements disseminated via flooding

13

Dijkstra’s algorithm: example

Step012345

start NA

ADADE

ADEBADEBC

ADEBCF

D(B),p(B)2,A2,A2,A

D(C),p(C)5,A4,D3,E3,E

D(D),p(D)1,A

D(E),p(E)infinity

2,D

D(F),p(F)infinityinfinity

4,E4,E4,E

A

ED

CB

F

2

2

13

1

1

2

53

5

14

Route Optimization

Improve user performance and network efficiency by tuning OSPF weights to the prevailing traffic demands.

AT&T

customers orpeers

customers orpeers

backbone

15

Route Optimization

• Traffic engineering – Predict influence of weight changes on traffic flow– Minimize objective function (say, of link utilization)

• Inputs– Networks topology: capacitated, directed graph– Routing configuration: routing weight for each link– Traffic matrix: offered load each pair of nodes

• Outputs– Shortest path(s) for each node pair– Volume of traffic on each link in the graph– Value of the objective function

16

Example

A

B

C

D

1

1 2

1

E

2

Links AB and BD are overloaded

Change weight of CD to 1 to improve routing (load balancing) !

17

References

1. Anja Feldmann, Albert Greenberg, Carsten Lund, Nick Reingold, Jennifer Rexford, and Fred True, "Deriving traffic demands for operational IP networks: Methodology and experience," IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, pp. 265-279, June 2001.

2. Bernard Fortz and Mikkel Thorup, "Internet traffic engineering by optimizing OSPF weights," in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, pp. 519-528, 2000.

18

Distance Vector Routing: RIP

• Based on the Bellman-Ford algorithm– At node X, the distance to Y is updated by

where DX(Y) denote the distance at X currently from X to Y,N(X) is set of the neighbors of node X, and c(X, Z) is the distance of the direct link from X to Z

))(),((min)( )( YDZXcYD ZXNZ

X

19

Distance Table: ExampleA

E D

CB7

8

1

2

1

2

D ()

A

B

C

D

A

0

7

1c(E,A)

B

7

0

1

8c(E,B)

D

2

0

2c(E,D)

E

distance tables from neighbors

dest

inat

ions

A

1

8

B

15

8

9

D

4

2

computation E’sdistance

table

1, A

8, B

4, D

2, D

distance table E sends to its neighbors

A: 1

B: 8

C: 4

D: 2

E: 0

Below is just one step! The algorithm repeats for ever!

20

Link Failure and Recovery

• Distance vectors: exchanged every 30 sec

• If no advertisement heard after 180 sec --> neighbor/link declared dead– routes via neighbor invalidated– new advertisements sent to neighbors– neighbors in turn send out new

advertisements (if tables changed)– link failure info quickly propagates to entire

net

21

The bouncing effect

A

25

1

1

B

C

B

C 21

dest costA

C 11

dest cost

A

B 12

dest cost

22

C sends routes to B

A

25 1

B

C

B

C 21

dest costA

C 1~

dest cost

A

B 12

dest cost

23

B updates distance to A

A

25 1

B

C

B

C 21

dest costA

C 13

dest cost

A

B 12

dest cost

24

B sends routes to C

A

25 1

B

C

B

C 21

dest costA

C 13

dest cost

A

B 14

dest cost

25

How are these loops caused?

• Observation 1:– B’s metric increases

• Observation 2:– C picks B as next hop to A– But, the implicit path from C to A includes

itself!

26

Solutions

• Split horizon/Poisoned reverse– B does not advertise route to C or advertises it

with infinite distance (16)

• Works for two node loops– does not work for loops with more nodes

27

Example where Split Horizon fails

1

11

1

A B

C

D

• When link breaks, C marks D as unreachable and reports that to A and B

• Suppose A learns it first. A now thinks best path to D is through B. A reports a route of cost=3 to C.

• C thinks D is reachable through A at cost 4 and reports that to B.

• B reports a cost 5 to A who reports new cost to C.

• etc...

28

Comparison of LS and DV algorithms

Message complexity• LS: with n nodes, E links,

O(nE) msgs sent• DV: exchange between

neighbors only– larger msgs

Speed of Convergence• LS: requires O(nE) msgs

– may have oscillations

• DV: convergence time varies– routing loops– count-to-infinity problem

Robustness: what happens if router malfunctions?

LS: – node can advertise

incorrect link cost– each node computes

only its own table

DV:– DV node can advertise

incorrect path cost– error propagates thru

network

29

Hierarchical Routing

scale: with 50 million destinations:

• can’t store all dest’s in routing tables!

• routing table exchange would swamp links!

administrative autonomy• internet = network of

networks• each network admin may

want to control routing in its own network

Our routing study thus far - idealization • all routers identical• network “flat”… not true in practice

30

Hierarchical Routing

• aggregate routers into regions, “autonomous systems” (AS)

• routers in same AS run same routing protocol– “intra-AS” routing

protocol

• special routers in AS• run intra-AS routing

protocol with all other routers in AS

• also responsible for routing to destinations outside AS– run inter-AS routing

protocol with other gateway routers

gateway routers

31

Internet AS Hierarchy

Inter-AS border (exterior gateway) routers

Intra-AS interior (gateway) routers

32

Intra-AS and Inter-AS routing

Host h2

a

b

b

aaC

A

Bd c

A.a

A.c

C.bB.a

cb

Hosth1

Intra-AS routingwithin AS A

Inter-AS routingbetween A and B

Intra-AS routingwithin AS B

Peer-to-Peer Networks: Chord


Balaji Prabhakar

34

A peer-to-peer storage problem

• 1000 scattered music enthusiasts• Willing to store and serve replicas• How do you find the data?

35

The Lookup Problem

Internet

N1

N2 N3

N6N5

N4

Publisher

Key=“title”Value=MP3 data…

ClientLookup(“title”)

?

36

Centralized lookup (Napster)

Publisher@

Client

Lookup(“title”)

N6

N9 N7

DB

N8

N3

N2N1SetLoc(“title”, N4)

Simple, but O(N) state and a single point of failure


N4

37

Flooded queries (Gnutella)

N4Publisher@

Client

N6

N9

N7N8

N3

N2N1

Robust, but worst case O(N) messages per lookup


Lookup(“title”)

38

Routed queries (Freenet, Chord, etc.)

N4Publisher

Client

N6

N9

N7N8

N3

N2N1

Lookup(“title”)


39

Chord Distinguishing Features

•Simplicity•Provable Correctness•Provable Performance

40

Chord Simplicity

• Resolution entails participation by O(log(N)) nodes

• Resolution is efficient when each node enjoys accurate information about O(log(N)) other nodes

41

Chord Algorithms

•Basic Lookup•Node Joins•Stabilization•Failures and Replication

42

Chord Properties

• Efficient: O(log(N)) messages per lookup– N is the total number of servers

• Scalable: O(log(N)) state per node• Robust: survives massive failures

43

Chord IDs

• Key identifier = SHA-1(key)• Node identifier = SHA-1(IP address)• Both are uniformly distributed• Both exist in the same ID space

• How to map key IDs to node IDs?

44

Consistent Hashing[Karger 97]

• Target: web page caching• Like normal hashing, assigns items to

buckets so that each bucket receives roughly the same number of items

• Unlike normal hashing, a small change in the bucket set does not induce a total remapping of items to buckets

45

Consistent Hashing [Karger 97]

N32

N90

N105

K80

K20

K5

Circular 7-bitID space

Key 5Node 105

A key is stored at its successor:node with next higher ID

46

Basic lookup

N32

N90

N105

N60

N10N120

K80

“Where is key 80?”

“N90 has K80”

47

Simple lookup algorithm

Lookup(my-id, key-id)n = my successorif my-id < n < key-id

call Lookup(id) on node n // next hop

elsereturn my successor // done

• Correctness depends only on successors

48

“Finger table” allows log(N)-time lookups

N80

½¼

1/8

1/161/321/641/128

49

Finger i points to successor of n+2i

N80

½¼

1/8

1/161/321/641/128

112

N120

50

Lookup with fingers

Lookup(my-id, key-id)look in local finger table for

highest node n s.t. my-id < n < key-idif n exists

call Lookup(id) on node n // next hop

elsereturn my successor // done

51

Lookups take O(log(N)) hops

N32

N10

N5

N20

N110

N99

N80

N60

Lookup(K19)

K19

52

Node JoinLinked List Insert

N36

N40

N25

1. Lookup(36)K30K38

53

Node Join (2)

N36

N40

N25

2. N36 sets its ownsuccessor pointer

K30K38

54

Node Join (3)

N36

N40

N25

3. Copy keys 26..36from N40 to N36

K30K38

K30

55

Node Join (4)

N36

N40

N25

4. Set N25’s successorpointer

Update finger pointers in the backgroundCorrect successors produce correct lookups

K30K38

K30

56

Stabilization

• Case 1: finger tables are reasonably fresh• Case 2: successor pointers are correct;

fingers are inaccurate• Case 3: successor pointers are inaccurate

or key migration is incomplete• Stabilization algorithm periodically verifies

and refreshes node knowledge– Successor pointers– Predecessor pointers– Finger tables

57

Failures and Replication

N120

N113

N102

N80

N85

N80 doesn’t know correct successor, so incorrect lookup

N10

Lookup(90)

58

Solution: successor lists

• Each node knows r immediate successors• After failure, will know first live successor• Correct successors guarantee correct lookups

• Guarantee is with some probability

59

Choosing the successor list length

• Assume 1/2 of nodes fail• P(successor list all dead) = (1/2)r

– I.e. P(this node breaks the Chord ring)– Depends on independent failure

• P(no broken nodes) = (1 – (1/2)r)N

– r = 2log(N) makes prob. = 1 – 1/N

60

References

Ion Stoica, Robert Morris, David Liben-Nowell, David R. Karger, M. Frans Kaashoek, Frank Dabek, Hari Balakrishnan, ``Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Protocol for Internet Applications,'‘IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 17-32, February 2003.

Switch Scheduling Algorithms


Balaji Prabhakar

62

Basic Architectural Components

ForwardingDecision

ForwardingDecision

ForwardingDecision

RoutingTable

RoutingTable

RoutingTable

Interconnect

OutputScheduling

1.

2.

3.

63

Switching Fabrics

Output Queued

InputQueued

Combined Input and

Output Queued ParallelPacket

Switches37526014

72356104

75231064

70513426

74560312

76453202

76543210

000001

010011

100101

110111

Batcher Sorter Self-Routing Network

Multistage

64

Input Queueing

configuration

Data

In

Data Out

Scheduler

65

Background

1. [Karol et al. 1987] Throughput limited to by head-of-line blocking for Bernoulli IID uniform traffic.

2. [Tamir 1989] Observed that with “Virtual Output Queues” (VOQs) Head-of-Line blocking is reduced and throughput goes up.

%5822

66

Head of Line Blocking

69

Input QueueingVirtual output queues

70

Background Scheduling via Matching

3. [Anderson et al. 1993] Observed analogy to maximum size matching in a bipartite graph.

4. [McKeown et al. 1995] (a) Maximum size match can not guarantee 100% throughput.(b) But maximum weight match can – O(N3).

Matching

O(N2.5)

71

BackgroundSpeedup

5. [Chuang, Goel et al. 1997] Precise emulation of a central shared memory switch is possible with a speedup of two and a “stable marriage” scheduling algorithm.

6. [Prabhakar and Dai 2000] 100% throughput possible for maximal matching with a speedup of two.

72

Simulation

Input Queueing Output Queueing

73

Using Speedup

1

1

1

2

2

74

Scheduling algorithms to achieve 100% throughput

1. Basic switch model.2. When traffic is uniform (Many algorithms…)3. When traffic is non-uniform.

• Technique: Birkhoff-von Neumann decomposition.

4. Load balancing.• Technique: 2-stage switch.• Technique: Parallel Packet Switch.

75

Basic Switch Model

A1(n)

S(n)

N NLNN(n)

A1N(n)

A11(n)L11(n)

1 1

AN(n)

ANN(n)

AN1(n)

D1(n)

DN(n)

76

Some Definitions

matrix. npermutatio a is and :where

:matrix Service 2.

".admissible" is traffic the say we If

where

:matrix Traffic 1.

SssS

nAE

ijij

jij

iij

ijijij

1,0],[

1,1

)]([:,

3. Queue occupancies:

Occupancy

L11(n) LNN(n)

77

Some possible performance goals

?metrics... Other 6

5

4

3.

"throughput "100% 2.

onconservati Work 1.

.

)(lim

)(lim.

,)]([.

,)(

ij

ij

n

ij

n

ij

ij

n

nA

n

nD

CnLE

nCnL

When traffic is

admissible

78





79

Algorithms that give 100% throughput for uniform traffic

• Quite a few algorithms give 100% throughput when traffic is uniform

• “Uniform”: the destination of each cell is picked independently and uniformly and at random (uar) from the set of all outputs.

80

Maximum size bipartite match

• Intuition: maximizes instantaneous throughput

• Gives 100% throughput for uniform traffic.

L11(n)>0

LN1(n)>0

“Request” Graph Bipartite Match

MaximumSize Match

81

Some Observations

• A maximum size match (MSM) maximizes instantaneous throughput.

• But a MSM is complex – O(N2.5).• In general, maximal matching is much

simpler to implement, and has a much faster running time.

• A maximal size matching is at least half the size of a maximum size matching.

82

Maximal vs. Maximum Matching

A 1

B

C

D

E

F

2

3

4

5

6

A 1

B

C

D

E

F

2

3

4

5

6

Maximal Matching Maximum Matching

83

TDM Scheduling Algorithm

If arriving traffic is i.i.d with destinations picked uar across outputs, then a “TDM” schedule gives 100% throughput.

A 1

B

C

D

2

3

4

B

C

D

2

3

4

B

C

D

2

3

4

A 1 A 1

Permutations are picked uar from the set of N! permutations.

84

Why doesn’t maximizing instantaneous throughput give 100% throughput for non-

uniform traffic?

2/1

2/1

2/1

32

21

1211Three possiblematches, S(n):

100%). t(throughpu stable not is switch 0.0358 if so And

But

most at is served is 1 input which at rate total The

. w.p. serviced is 1 Input ) w.p.( arrivals have

both and and , time at that Assume

.)21(31121

.)21(311

)21(11)21(32

32)21(

)()(0)(0)(

21

2

22

2

32211211

-δ// - -λ

//

/-//

/-δ/

nQnQ n, L nn, L

85





86

Example:With random arrivals, but known traffic matrix

• Assume we know the traffic matrix, and the arrival pattern is random:

• Then we can simply choose:

1000

0100

002/12/1

002/12/1

1000

0100

0001

0010

)(,

1000

0100

0010

0001

)( evenSoddS

87

Birkhoff - von Neumann Decomposition

rate. arrival the exceeds rate

departure the and words, other In

is period in of soccurrence of# the that So

:matrices service of sequence the pick Then

element) by (element

:that such matrices, service of set and

constants of set some pick can we y,Intuitivel

,0))((

.

),,,,,,,()(

.,

),(

),,(

1

13221

1

1

1

T

i

ii

r

r

iii

r

r

iS

aTM

T

MMMMMMnS

Ma

MM

aa

Turns out, any can always be decomposed into a linear (convex) combination of matrices, (M1, …, Mr) by Birkhoff-von Neumann.

88

Birkhoff ‘1946 Decomposition Example

4.05.01.0

5.02.03.0

1.03.06.0~R

2.05.01.0

5.003.0

1.03.04.0

100

010

001

= 0.2 +

=

010

100

001

0.40.2

100

010

001

+

2.01.01.0

1.003.0

1.03.00

+

010

001

100

1.0

001

100

010

1.0

100

001

010

2.0

010

100

001

4.0

100

010

001

2.0~R

89

In practice…

• Unfortunately, we usually don’t know traffic matrix a priori, so we can:– measure or estimate , or– use the current queue occupancies.

90





91

2-stage Switch

Motivation:1. If traffic is uniformly distributed, then

even a simple TDM schedule gives 100% throughput.

2. So why not force non-uniform traffic to be uniformly distributed?

92

2-stage Switch

S2(n)

N NLNN(n)

L11(n)

1 1 D1(n)

DN(n)

N N

1 1 A’1(n)

A’N(n)

S1(n)

A1(n)

AN(n)

BufferlessLoad-balancing

Stage

BufferedSwitching

Stage

93

2-stage Switch

ˆ( ) ,

ˆ mod

nn

n n N

1. Consider a periodic sequence of permutation matrices:

where is a one-cycle permutation matrix

(f or example, a TDM sequence), and .

2. I f 1st stage is

Main Result [Chang et al.]:

1 1

1

2 2

( ) ( ),

( ) ( ),

n n

n n

scheduled by a sequence of permutation

matrices:

where is a random starting phase, and

3. The 2nd stage is scheduled by a sequence of permutation

matrices:

4. Then the switch gives 100% throughput f or a very broad

range of traffi c types.

1st stage makes non-unif orm traffi c unif orm,

and breaks up burstiness. For bursty traffi c, delay can be

lower than f or an ou

Observation 1:

tput queued switch!

Cells can become mis-sequenced.Observation 2:

94

Parallel Packet Switches

Definition:

A PPS is comprised of multiple identical lower-speed packet-switches operating independently and in parallel. An incoming stream of packets is spread, packet-by-packet, by a demultiplexor across the slower packet-switches, then recombined by a multiplexor at the output.

We call this “parallel packet switching”

95

Architecture of a PPS

OQ Switch

OQ Switch

OQ Switch

1

2

3

N=4

R

R

R

R

1

2

3

N=4

R

R

R

R

MultiplexorDemultiplexor

Demultiplexor

Demultiplexor

Demultiplexor

Multiplexor

Multiplexor

Multiplexor

(sR/k) (sR/k)

k=3

1

2

(sR/k) (sR/k)

96

Parallel Packet SwitchesResults

[Iyer et al.] If S >= 2 then a PPS can precisely emulate a FIFO output queued switch for all traffic patterns, and hence achieves 100% throughput.

97

References

1. C.-S. Chang, W.-J. Chen, and H.-Y. Huang, "Birkhoff-von Neumann input buffered crossbar switches," in Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM '00, Tel Aviv, Israel, 2000, pp. 1614 – 1623.

2. N. McKeown, A. Mekkittikul, V. Anantharam, and J. Walrand. Achieving 100% Throughput in an Input-Queued Switch. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 47(8), Aug 1999.

3. A. Mekkittikul and N. W. McKeown, "A practical algorithm to achieve 100% throughput in input-queued switches," in Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM '98, March 1998.

4. L. Tassiulas, “Linear complexity algorithms for maximum throughput in radio networks and input queued switchs,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM ‘98, San Francisco CA, April 1998.

5. C.-S. Chang, D.-S. Lee, Y.-S. Jou, “Load balanced Birkhoff-von Neumann switches,” Proceedings of IEEE HPSR ‘01, May 2001, Dallas, Texas.

6. S. Iyer, N. McKeown, "Making parallel packet switches practical," in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM `01, April 2001, Alaska.

Competitive Analysis: Theory and Applications in Networking


Balaji Prabhakar

99

Decision Making Under Uncertainty:

Online Algorithms and Competitive Analysis

• Online Algorithm:– Inputs arrive online (one by one)– Algorithm must process each input as it arrives– Lack of knowledge of future arrivals results in

inefficiency

• Malicious, All-powerful Adversary:– Omniscient: monitors the algorithm– Generates “worst-case” inputs

• Competitive Ratio:– Worst ratio of the “cost” of online algorithm to

the “cost” of optimum algorithm

100

Competitive Analysis: Discussion

• Very Harsh Model– All powerful adversary

• But..– Can often still prove good competitive ratios– Really tough Testing-Ground for Algorithms– Often leads to good rules of thumb which can

be validated by other analyses– Distribution independent: doesn’t matter

whether traffic is heavy-tailed or Poisson or Bernoulli

101

Competitive Analysis in Networking: Outline

• Shared Memory Switches• Multicast Trees

– The Greedy Strategy

• Routing and Admission Control– The Exponential Metric

• More Restricted Adversaries– Adversarial Queueing Theory

• Congestion Control

102

InterconnectsOutput Queueing

Individual Output Queues Centralized Shared Memory

1

2

N 1

2

N

103

Buffer Model

• We consider NxN switch• Shared memory able to hold M bytes• Packets may be either:

– accepted/rejected– preempted

• All packets have the same size

M

104

Shared Memory Example

105

Competitive Analysis

Aim: maximize the total number of packets transmitted

For each packet sequence S denote,• VOPT(S): value of best possible solution,

• VA(S): value obtained by algorithm A

Throughput-Competitive Ratio: MAXS {VOPT(S) / VA(S)}

Uniform performance guarantee

106

Longest Queue Drop Policy

When a packet arrives:– Always accept if the buffer is not full– Otherwise we accept the packet and drop

a packet from the tail of the longest queue

107

Longest Queue Drop Policy

M = 9

108

LQD Policy Analysis

Theorem 1 (UB): The competitive ratio of the LQD Policy is at most 2.

Theorem 2 (LB): The competitive ratio of the LQD policy is at least 2.

Theorem 3 (LB): The competitive ratio of any online policy is at least 4/3.

109

Proof Outline (UB)

EXTRA

OPT LQD

Definition: An OPT packet p sent at time t is an extra packet if the LQD port is idle.

Claim: There exists a matching between each packet from EXTRA to a packet in LQD.

110

Matching Construction

• For each unmatched OPT packet p in a higher position than the LQD queue length:

• When p arrives and it is accepted by both OPT and LQD then match p to itself • Otherwise, match p to any unmatched packet in LQD

• If a matched LQD packet p is preempted, then the preempting packet replaces p.

111

Proof Outline (UB)

OPT LQD

112

Proof Outline (UB)

Lemma: The matching process never fails.

• Notice:V(OPT) V(LQD) + V(EXTRA)

• Existence of matching implies:V(EXTRA) V(LQD)

• We obtain that:V(OPT) 2 V(LQD)

113

Proof Outline (LB)

Scenario (active ports 1 & 2):

• At t = 0 two bursts of M packets to 1 & 2 arrive. • The online retains at most M/2, say 1’s packets.• During the following M time slots one packet destined to 2 arrives. • The scenario is repeated.

114

Proof Outline (LB-LQD)

Scenario:

• the switch memoryM = A2/2 + A

• the number of output ports N = 3A

AActive

Ovld.

IdleA

A

115


Active output ports: • have an average load of 1 with period A • the bursts to successive ports are evenly staggered in time

Overloaded output ports: • receive exactly 2 packets every time slot

116


OPT ensures that both the active and overloaded output ports are completely utilized.

At the same time the throughput of the active output ports in LQD is (2 -1)A.

117

Other Policies

Complete Partition: N-competitive– Allocate to each output port M/N buffer

space

Complete Sharing: N-competitive– Admit packets into the buffer if there is

some free space

118

Other Policies Cont.

Static Threshold: N-competitive– Set the threshold for a queue length to M/N– A packet is admitted if the threshold is not

violated and there is a free space

Dynamic Threshold: open problem– Set the threshold for a queue length to the

amount of the free buffer space– All packets above the threshold are rejected

119







120

Steiner Tree Problem

Objective: find a minimum cost tree connecting S.

121

• Step 1: Construct a complete directed distance graph G1=(V1,E1,c1).

• Step 2: Find the min spanning tree T1 of G1.

• Step3: Construct a subgraph GS of G by replacing each edge in T1 by its corresponding shortest path in G.

• Step 4: Find the min spanning tree TS of GS.

• Step 5: Construct a Steiner tree TH from TS by deleting edges in TS if necessary, so that all the leaves in TH are Steiner points.

KMB Algorithm (Offline)Due to [Kou, Markowsky and Berman 81’]

122

Worst case time complexity O(|S||V|2).

Cost no more than 2(1 - 1/l) *optimal cost where l = number of leaves in the steiner

tree.

KMB Algorithm Cont.

123

KMB Example

A

C

D4

4

444 4

B

A

C

D4

4

4

B

A

B

C D

EF

G

HI

10

1

1

2

9

8

1 1

1/2

2

1/2

1

B

C D

EF

G

HI

1

1

2

1 1

1/2

2

1/2

1

A

Destination Nodes

Intermediate Nodes

124

KMB Example Cont.

B

C D

EF

G

HI

1

1

2

1 1

1/2

2

1/2

A

B

C D

EF

I

1

1

2

1 1

2

A

Destination Nodes

Intermediate Nodes

125

Incremental Construction of Multicast Trees

• Fixed Multicast Source s– K receivers arrive one by one– Must adapt multicast tree to each new arrival

without rerouting existing receivers– Malicious adversary generates bad requests– Objective: Minimize total size of multicast tree

s r1

a

b

r1r1

bb

C=3/2

Can create worse sequences

126

Dynamic Steiner Tree (DST)

• G=(V,E) weighted, undirected, connected graph.

• Si V is the set of terminal nodes to be connected at step i.

127

Two Classes of Online Algorithms

• Shortest Path Algorithm– Each receiver connects using shortest path to

source (or to a core)• DVMRP [Waitzman, Partridge, Deering ’88]• CBT [Ballardie, Francis, Crowcroft ‘93]• PIM [Deering et al. ’96]

• Greedy Algorithm [Imase and Waxman ‘91]– Each receiver connects to the closest point on

the existing tree– Independently known to the Systems community

• The “naive” algorithm [Doar and Leslie ‘92]• End-system multicasting [Faloutsos, Banerjea, Pankaj

’98; Francis ‘99]

128

Shortest Path Algorithm: Example

• Receivers r1, r2, r3, … , rK join in order

N

s

r1

r2

r3

rK

129

Shortest Path Algorithm

• Cost of shortest path tree K N

N

s

r1

r2

r3

rK

130

Shortest Path AlgorithmCompetitive Ratio

• Optimum Cost K + N• If N is large, the competitive ratio is K

s

r1

r2

r3

rK

131

Greedy Algorithm

• Theorem 1: For the greedy algorithm, competitive ratio = O(log K)

• Theorem 2: No algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio better than log K

[Imase and Waxman ’91]

Greedy algorithm is the optimum strategy

132

Proof of Theorem 1

[Alon and Azar ’93]

• L = Size of the optimum multicast tree

• pi = amount paid by online algorithm for ri

– i.e. the increase in size of the greedy multicast tree as a result of adding receiver ri

• Lemma 1: The greedy algorithm pays 2L/j or more for at most j receivers– Assume the lemma– Total Cost 2L (1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + … 1/K) ¼ 2L

log K

133

Proof of Lemma 3

Suppose towars a contradiction that there are more than j receivers for which the greedy algorithm paid more than 2L/j– Let these be r1, r2, … , rm, for m larger than j

– Each of these receivers is at least 2L/j away from each other and from the source

134

rm

Tours and Trees

s

r1 r2

r3

r4

Each segment 2L/j,Tour cost > 2L

s

r1 r2r3

r4

rm

One can construct tour from tree by repeating edges at most twice, Tour cost 2L

135







136

The Exponential Cost Metric

• Consider a resource with capacity C• Assume that a fraction of the resource has

been consumed• Exponential cost “rule of thumb”: The cost of the

resource is given by for appropriately chosen • Intuition: Cost increases steeply with

– Bottleneck resources become expensive

Cost

137

Applications of Exponential Costs

• Exponential cost “rule of thumb” applies to– Online Routing– Online Call Admission Control– Stochastic arrivals– Stale Information– Power aware routing

138

The Online Routing Problem

• Connection establishment requests arrive online in a VPN (Virtual Private Network)

• Must assign a route to each connection and reserve bandwidth along that route– PVCs in ATM networks– MPLS + RSVP in IP networks

• Oversubscribing is allowed– Congestion = the worst oversubscribing on a link

• Goal: Assign routes to minimize congestion• Assume all connections have identical b/w

requirement, all links have identical capacity

139

Online Routing Problem: Example

s r1

b

r1r1C=2

Can create worse sequences

aaa

140

Online Algorithm for Routing

• L = Fraction of bandwidth of link L that has been already reserved

• = N, the size of the network

• The Exponential Cost Algorithm:– Route each incoming connection on current

cheapest path from src to dst– Reserve bandwidth along this path[Aspnes et al. ‘93]

141

Online Algorithm for Routing

• Theorem 1: The exponential cost algorithm achieves a competitive ratio of O(log N) for congestion

• Theorem 2: No algorithm can achieve competitive ratio better than log N in asymmetric networks

This simple strategy is optimum!

142



143

Online Admission Control and Routing

• Connection establishment requests arrive online

• Must assign a route to each connection and reserve bandwidth along that route

• Oversubscribing is not allowed– Must perform admission control

• Goal: Admit and route connections to maximize total number of accepted connections (throughput)

144

Exponential Metric and Admission Control

• When a connection arrives, compute the cheapest path under current exponential costs

• If the cost of the path is less than then accept the connection; else reject[Awerbuch, Azar, Plotkin ’93]

• Theorem: This simple algorithm admits at least O(1/log N) as many calls as the optimum

145



146

Assume Stochastic Arrivals

• Connection arrivals are Poisson, durations are Memory-less

• Assume fat links (Capacity >> log N)• Theorem: The exponential cost

algorithm results in1. Near-optimum congestion for routing problem 2. Near-optimum throughput for admission

problem[Kamath, Palmon, Plotkin ’96]Near-optimum: Compt. ratio = (1+) for close

to 0

147

Versatility of Exponential Costs

• Guarantees of log N for Competitive ratio against malicious adversary

• Near-optimum for stochastic arrivals• Near-optimum given fixed traffic matrix

[Young ’95; Garg and Konemann ’98]

148



149

Exponential Metrics and Stale Information

• Exponential metrics continue to work well if– Link states are a little stale– Shortest paths are reused over small intervals

rather than recomputed for each connection– No centralized agent[Goel, Meyerson, Plotkin ’01]

• Caveat: Still pretty hard to implement

150



151

Power Aware Routing

• Consider a group of small mobile nodes eg. sensors which form an adhoc network– Bottleneck Resource: Battery– Goal: Maximize the time till the network partitions

• Assign a cost to each mobile node which is where = fraction of battery consumed– Send packets over the cheapest path under this cost

measure

• O(log n) competitive against an adversary– Near-optimum for stochastic/fixed traffic

152







153

• Malicious, all-knowing adversary– Injects packets into the network– Each packet must travel over a specified route

• Suppose adversary injects 3 packets per second from s to r– Link capacities are one packet per second

– No matter what we do, we will have unbounded queues and unbounded delays

– Need to temper our definition of adversaries

Adversarial Queueing TheoryMotivation

sr

154

Adversarial Queueing TheoryBounded Adversaries

• Given a window size W, and a rate r < 1– For any link L, and during any interval of

duration T > W, the adversary can inject at most rT packets which have link L in their route

• Adversary can’t set an impossible task!!– More gentle than competitive analysis

• Will study packet scheduling strategies– Which packet to forward if more than one

packets are waiting to cross a link?

155

Some Interesting Scheduling Policies

• FIFO: First In First Out• LIFO: Last In First Out• NTG: Nearest To Go

– Forward a packet which is closest to destination

• FTG: Furthest To Go– Forward a packet which is furthest from its destination

• LIS: Longest In System– Forward the packet that got injected the earliest– Global FIFO

• SIS: Shortest In System– Forward the packet that got injected the last– Global LIFO

156

Stability in the Adversarial Model

• Consider a scheduling policy (eg. FIFO, LIFO etc.)

• The policy is universally stable if for networks and all “bounded adversaries”, the packet delays and queue sizes remain bounded

• FIFO, LIFO, NTG are not universally stable [Borodin et al. ‘96]

• LIS, SIS, FTG are universally stable[Andrews et al. ‘96]

157

Adversarial Queueing Model: Routing

Using the Exponential Cost Metric

• Adversary injects packets into the network but gives only the src, dst– The correct routes are hidden

• Need to compute routes– Again, use the exponential cost metric– Reset the cost periodically to zero– Use any stable scheduling policy

• Theorem: The combined routing and scheduling policy is universally stable[Andrews et al. ’01]

158







159

The Problem

• What rates should the users use to send their data?

• How to keep the network efficient and fair?

• Goal: match the available bandwidth !

Sources

Sinks

160

Model Description

• Model– Time divided into steps– Oblivious Adversary– Source select xi

• Severe cost function

Time

Available Bandwidth bichosen by the Adversary

Algorithm picks and sends xi

161

Competitive Ratio

• An Algorithm achieves

• Optimal (offline) achieves

• Seek to minimize

162

Adversary Model

• Unrestricted Adversary– Has too much power

• Fixed Range Adversary

• µ-multiplicative adversary

• {α,β}-additive adversary

163

Fixed Range Model

• Adversary selects any value

• Deterministic Algorithm– Optimal would never select a rate > c

• If optimal does, adversary can select c, causing the algorithm to send 0

– Optimal selects c– In that case, adversary selects d– Competitive ratio is d/c

164

Fixed range – Randomized Algorithm

• No randomized algorithm can achieve competitive ratio better than 1+ln(d/c) in the fixed range model with range [c,d]

• Proof :– Yao’s minimax principle– Consider a randomized adversary against

deterministic algorithms– Adversary can choose g(y) = c/y^2 in [c,d)– With probability c/d chooses d

165

Proof continued ….

• If the algorithm picks xi = x

• The expected optimal is at most

166

µ-multiplicative model – Randomized Algorithm

• No randomized algorithm can achieve competitive ratio better than ln(µ) + 1

• Proof:– Adversary can always choose bi in [bi, µbi]

167

Randomized Algorithm 4 log(µ) + 12

• Assumptions –relaxed later-– µ is a power of 2– b1 is in the range [1,2µ)

• Algorithm (MIMD)– At step 1, pick at random x1 power of 2

between 1 and 2µ– On failure, xi+1 = xi/2;

– On success, xi+1 = 2µxi;

• Claim:– Competitive ratio of 4 log(µ) + 12

168

Proof outline

• Think about choosing one deterministic algorithm from log(2µ) + 1 choices

• Think about the algorithms as an ensemble running in parallel

• Will show that the ensemble manages to send at least opt/4. [A bit of work]

• Once this is done, picking one algorithm gives opt/4(log(µ)+2)

169

Proof (1/3)

• Algorithms pick consecutive sequence• Ensemble is successful

– bi falls in the picked range– ei : largest value sent by any algorithm – bi < 2ei

– At the next step, if the bandwidth increases or stays constant, the ensemble will succeed

• bi < 2ei , bi+1 < µbi => bi+1 < 2µei

• Bandwidth lies in the range covered by the ensemble

170

Proof (2/3)

• Need to worry about decreasing bandwidth– May decrease very fast– Ensemble achieved ei at step i– Now it was unsuccessful at step i + 1

• Could not have been more than ei available

– At step i+2, they all divide their rates by 2• Could not have been more than ei/2 available

– By induction, one can show that :• ei + ei/2 + ei/4 + …. = 2ei

171

Proof (3/3)

• Optimal algorithm could have achieved at most 4ei

– Up to 2ei in at step I because it is not constrained to choose a power of 2

– 2ei when the ensemble were not successful

• Summing over all time steps, at least we can transmit opt/4

• µ- assumption -> round µ to the next power of 2. Result in log(µ) + 3 algorithms

172

References

1. N. Alon and Y. Azar. On-line Steiner trees in the Euclidean plane. Discrete and Computational Geometry, 10(2), 113-121, 1993.

2. M. Andrews, B. Awerbuch, A. Fernandez, J. Kleinberg, T. Leighton, and Z. Liu. Universal stability results for greedy contention-resolution protocols. Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Conference on Foundations of Computer Science, 1996.

3. M. Andrews, A. Fernandez, A. Goel, and L. Zhang. Source Routing and Scheduling in Packet Networks. To appear in the proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Foundations of Computer Science, 2001.

4. J. Aspnes, Y. Azar, A. Fiat, S. Plotkin, and O. Waarts. On-line load balancing with applications to machine scheduling and virtual circuit routing. Proceedings of the 25th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1993.

5. B. Awerbuch, Y. Azar, and S. Plotkin. Throughput competitive online routing. Proceedings of the 34th IEEE symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1993.

6. A. Ballardie, P. Francis, and J. Crowcroft. Core Based Trees(CBT) - An architecture for scalable inter-domain multicast routing. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM, 1993.

173

References [Contd.]

7. A. Borodin, J. Kleinberg, P. Raghavan, M. Sudan, and D. Williamson. Adversarial queueing theory. Proceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1996.

8. S. Deering, D. Estrin, D. Farinacci, V. Jacobson, C. Liu, and L. Wei. The PIM architecture for wide-area multicast routing. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 4(2), 153-162, 1996.

9. M. Doar and I. Leslie. How bad is Naïve Multicast Routing? IEEE INFOCOM, 82-89, 1992.

10. M. Faloutsos, A. Banerjea, and R. Pankaj. QoSMIC: quality of service sensitive multicast Internet protocol. Computer Communication Review, 28(4), 144-53, 1998.

11. P. Francis. Yoid: Extending the Internet Multicast Architecture. Unrefereed report, http://www.isi.edu/div7/yoid/docs/index.html .

12. N. Garg and J. Konemann. Faster and simpler algorithms for multicommodity flow and other fractional packing problems. Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Foundations of Computer Science, 1998.

174

References [Contd.]

13. A. Goel, A. Meyerson, and S. Plotkin. Distributed Admission Control, Scheduling, and Routing with Stale Information. Proceedings of the 12th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 2001.

14. A. Goel and K. Munagala. Extending Greedy Multicast Routing to Delay Sensitive Applications. Short abstract in proceedings of the 11th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 2000. Long version to appear in Algorithmica.

15. M. Imase and B. Waxman. Dynamic Steiner tree problem. SIAM J. Discrete Math., 4(3), 369-384, 1991.

16. C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, and D. Estrin. Directed diffusion: A scalable and robust communication paradigm for sensor networks. Proceedings of the 6th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCOM), 2000.

17. A. Kamath, O. Palmon, and S. Plotkin. Routing and admission control in general topology networks with Poisson arrivals. Proceedings of the 7th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 1996.

18. D. Waitzman, C. Partridge, and S. Deering. Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol. Internet RFC 1075, 1988.

19. N. Young. Randomized rounding without solving the linear program. Proceedings of the 6th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 1995.

http://www.isi.edu/~govindan

175

References [Contd.]

20. R. Karp, E. Koutsoupias, C. Papadimitriou, and S. Shenker, “Optimization problems in congestion control”. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual IEEE Symposium of Foundation of Computer Science.

21. S. Arora, B. Brinkman, “A Randomized Online Algorithm for Bandwidth Utilization ”

Non-Preemptive Scheduling of Optical Switches


Balaji Prabhakar

177

Optical Fabric

Switching is achieved by tuning lasers to different wavelengths

The time to tune the lasers can be much longer than the duration of a cell

Tunable Lasers

.

.

.

.

.

.

Receivers

178

Model Description

Input-queued switch. Scheduler picks a new configuration

(matching). There is a configuration delay C. Then the configuration is held for a

pre-defined period of time.

179

The Bipartite Scheduling Problem

The makespan of the schedule: • total holding time +• the configuration overhead.

Goal: minimize the makespan. Preemptive: cells from a single queue can

be scheduled in different configurations. Non-preemptive: all cells from a single

queue are scheduled in just one configuration.

180

Non-Preemptive Scheduling

Minimizes the number of reconfigurations.

Allows to design low complexity schedulers,

which can operate at high speeds.

Handles efficiently variable size packets: no

need to keep packet reassembly buffers.

181

Greedy Algorithm

The weight of each edge is the occupancy of the corresponding input queue.

1. Create a new matching.2. Go over uncovered edges in order of

non-decreasing weight. Add the edge to the matching if possible marking it as covered.

3. If there are uncovered edges, goto Step 1.

182

25

243

7

Greedy Algorithm Example

7

4

5

2

1

3

1

2

Total holding time: 7+3+2Configuration overhead: 3C

183

Theorem 1: Greedy needs at most 2N-1 configurations.

Proof outline: • Consider all VOQi* and all VOQ*j

• There can be at most 2N-1 such queues• At each iteration, at least one of the

corresponding edges is covered• Thus, after 2N-1 iterations VOQij

must be served.

Analysis of Greedy: Complexity

184

Theorem 2 (UB): Greedy achieves an approximation factor of at most 2 for all values of C.

Theorem 3 (Greedy-LB): Greedy achieves an approximation factor of at least 2 for C=.

Analysis of Greedy: Makespan

185

Consider the k-th matching and let (i,j) be the heaviest edge of weight w.

Lemma 1: There are at least k/2 edges of weight w incident to either input i or output j.

Proof outline: In all iterations 1,...,k-1 Greedy chosen edge of weight w incident to i or j.

Proof of Theorem 2

186

Observation 1: OPT’s schedule contains at least k/2 configurations.

Observation 2: The k/2-th largest holding time in OPT’s schedule is at least w.

The theorem follows !

Proof of Theorem 2 Cont.

187

Theorem 4 (General-LB): The NPBS problem is NP-hard for all values of C and hard to approximate within a factor better than 7/6.

Proof outline: [GW85, CDP01]• Reduction from the Restricted Timetable

Design problem, asg. of teachers for 3 hrs.

• Encoding as a demand matrix, C=.• There is an optimal non-preemptive

schedule that contains 3 matchings.• Works for all values of C !

Hardness Results

188

Offline vs. Online

We considered Greedy in the offline case

What if packets constantly arrive ?

We use the idea of batch scheduling

Avoids starvation since all queued cells are included in the next batch

189

Batch Scheduling

N N

1 1R

R

Crossbar

R

R

1

N

1

N

Batch-(k+1)

Batch-(k)

190

Requirements

We have shown that the makespan of Greedy is at most twice that of OPT

A moderate speedup of 2 will allow us to provide strict delay guarantees for any admissible traffic

191

Open Problems

•Close the gap between the upper and the lower bound (2 vs. 7/6),

•Consider packet-mode scheduling

192

Literature Preemptive scheduling:

[Inukai79] Inukai. An Efcient SS/TDMA Time Slot Assignment Algorithm. IEEE Trans. on Communication, 27:1449-1455, 1979.

[GW85] Gopal and Wong. Minimizing the Number of Switchings in a SS/TDMA System. IEEE Trans. Communication, 33:497-501, 1985.

[BBB87] Bertossi, Bongiovanni and Bonuccelli. Time Slot Assignment in SS/TDMA systems with intersatellite links. IEEE Trans. on Communication, 35:602-608. 1987.

[BGW91] Bonuccelli, Gopal and Wong. Incremental Time Slot Assignement in SS/TDMA satellite systems. IEEE Trans. on Communication, 39:1147-1156. 1991.

[GG92] Ganz and Gao. Efficient Algorithms for SS/TDMA scheduling. IEEE Trans. on Communication, 38:1367-1374. 1992

[CDP01] Crescenzi, Deng and Papadimitriou. On Approximating a Scheduling Problem, Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 5:287-297, 2001.

[TD02] Towles and Dally. Guaranteed Scheduling for Switches with Conguration Overhead. Proc. of INFOCOM'02.

[LH03] Li and Hamdi, -Adjust Algorithm for Optical Switches with Reconguration Delay. Proc. of ICC'03.

... many others Non-preemptive scheduling:

[PR00] Prais and Ribeiro. Reactive GRASP: An Application to a Matrix Decomposition Problem in TDMA Trafc Assignment. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 12:164-176, 2000.

alex kesselman, mpi internet algorithms: design and analysis minicourse, oct. 2004

Documents

rights reserved algorithms

rights reserved methodsin

methods of algorithm

algorithm designalgorithms

particular algorithm

network efficiency

link cost changescopyright

cost paths