Preemptive Packet-Mode Scheduling to Improve TCP Performance

Li, Wenjie; Liu, Bin; Shi, Lei; Xu, Yang; Wu, Dapeng

doi:10.1007/11499169_20

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Little's law, latency is T = L/ , where L is the average queue length of the system. From (22) and (23), we can get the overall latency for both FLS and VLS, which is illustrated in Table III. The results indicate that the overall latency for VLS is significantly smaller than that for FLS.…”

Section: Spn Model For Variable Length Switchingsupporting

confidence: 71%

“…When the proportion of short packets increases, short packets may experience smaller latency than that of FLS. This problem of VLS has been overcome by short packet first (SPF) [21] and preemptive short packet first (P-SPF) [22] proposed in our pre-works. The main idea of SPF algorithm is to buffer short packets in different VOQs, and then always schedule these short packets first.…”

Section: Packet Latencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fortunately, the differences are not very wide and only a little more buffer is required to improve the loss performance. Furthermore, SPF [21] and P-SPF [22] in our former works have improved the short packet latency in VLS. Second, the disadvantages in packet loss, bandwidth loss and implementation complexity are caused by the inherent feature of FLS, and it seems no good solution is available to overcome them till now.…”

Section: Hu Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Performance comparison between fixed length switching and variable length switching

Chen

et al. 2007

Int J Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYFixed length switching (FLS) and variable length switching (VLS) are two main types of switching architecture in high-speed input-queued switches. FLS is based on a cell-by-cell scheduling algorithm, while VLS operates on the variable packet granularity. This paper aims to make a comprehensive comparison between these two switching modes to guide the industrial design and academic research. We use stochastic models, Petri net models, analysis and simulations to investigate various performance measures of interest. Average packet latency, bandwidth utilization, segmentation and reassembly overhead, as well as packet loss are the identified key parameters that influence the outcome of the comparison. The results achieved in this paper are twofold. On one hand, it is shown that FLS enables smaller packet loss and lower packet delay in case of a short packet. On the other hand, VLS favors better bandwidth utilization, reduced implementation complexity and lower average packet delay. We recommend VLS in the conclusion since its disadvantages can be compensated by some methods, while the problems in FLS are difficult to be solved.

show abstract

Section: Spn Model For Variable Length Switchingsupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Packet Latencymentioning

confidence: 99%