Nonclairvoyant scheduling

Motwani, Rajeev; Phillips, Steven J.; Torng, Eric

doi:10.1016/0304-3975(94)90151-1

Cited by 200 publications

(181 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

178

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Within these abstractions, the problem of scheduling bandwidth to a number of transmission sessions is identical to that of scheduling a number of processors to a set of parallelizable jobs. The latter problem has a rich history of results [22,13,5,8]. This paper applies and extends those results to the former problem.…”

Section: Tcp Viewed As a Scheduling Algorithmmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…Motwani et al [22] prove that for every deterministic nonclairvoyant scheduler without any extra power (i.e., the scheduler has no more resources than the optimal algorithm, or equivalently, without any limitations imposed on the power of the adversary), there is a set of n jobs on which the scheduler does a factor of Ω(n 1/3 ) worse than the optimal schedule. For EQUI, this ratio is Ω( n log n ).…”

Section: Previous Scheduling Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Any algorithm that solves the preceding scheduling problem must be an online algorithm [2] (since it must allocate its bandwidth as jobs arrive, without knowledge of future arrivals), non-clairvoyant [22,13,5] (it only knows when a job arrives and when it completes, but does not know the amount of work remaining or the parallelizability of the jobs) and distributed (the sender of a job has no knowledge of the other jobs or even the maximum bandwidth of the bottlenecks). It only receives limited feedback about his own transmission loss due to bottleneck overflow.…”

Section: The Scheduling Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Motwani et al [22] prove that for every deterministic nonclairvoyant scheduler (of which TCP is an example), the competitive ratio is Ω(n 1/3 ). Thus TCP needs at least a constant factor more resources than the optimal algorithm in order to be competitive.…”

Section: Lower Bounds For Non-clairvoyant Schedulersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

TCP is competitive against a limited adversary

Edmonds

Datta

Dymond

2003

Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the well-known Transport Control Protocol (TCP) is a de facto standard for reliable communication on the Internet, and performs well in practice, the question "how good is the TCP/IP congestion control algorithm?" is not completely resolved. In this paper, we provide some answers to this question using the competitive analysis framework. First, we prove that for networks with a single bottleneck (or point of congestion), TCP is competitive to the optimal global algorithm in minimizing the user-perceived latency or flow time of the sessions. Specifically, we show that with O(1) times as much bandwidth and O(1) extra time per job, TCP is O(1)-competitive against an optimal global algorithm. We motivate the need for allowing TCP to have extra resources by observing that existing lower bounds for non-clairvoyant scheduling algorithms imply that no online, distributed, non-clairvoyant algorithm can be competitive with an optimal offline algorithm if both algorithms were given the same resources. Second, we show that TCP is fair by proving that it converges quickly to allocations where every session gets its fair share of network bandwidth.

show abstract

Section: Tcp Viewed As a Scheduling Algorithmmentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Previous Scheduling Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Scheduling Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lower Bounds For Non-clairvoyant Schedulersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

TCP is competitive against a limited adversary

Edmonds

Datta

Dymond

2003

Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The next theorem gives an ª´¾ Ã µ lower bound on the smoothed competitive ratio of any deterministic algorithm under the partial bit randomization model, thus showing that MLF achieves up to a constant factor the best possible ratio in this model. The lower bound uses ideas introduced by Motwani et al in [15] for an ª´¾ Ã µ non-clairvoyant deterministic lower bound. Obviously, Theorem 4 also holds for the adaptive adversary.…”

Section: Lower Boundsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Average-Case and Smoothed Competitive Analysis of the Multilevel Feedback Algorithm

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

New algorithms for related machines with temporary jobs

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We consider the on‐line problem of assigning temporary jobs to related machines. In this model, machines have speeds and the jobs are weighted and may be temporary (i.e. may expire after some unknown finite amount of time). The cost of an assignment is the maximum load on a machine at any time. We present two new algorithms: a 6+2√5≈10.47‐competitive deterministic algorithm and a 9.572‐competitive randomized algorithm. The previously known best upper bound is achieved by a 20‐competitive deterministic algorithm whose randomized version is 5e=13.59‐competitive. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Nonclairvoyant scheduling

Cited by 200 publications

References 14 publications

TCP is competitive against a limited adversary

TCP is competitive against a limited adversary

Average-Case and Smoothed Competitive Analysis of the Multilevel Feedback Algorithm

New algorithms for related machines with temporary jobs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About