20
Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology **) Memorial University

Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures

Joanna Józefowska*)

Łukasz Józefowski*)

Wiesław Kubiak**)

*)Poznań University of Technology**)Memorial University

Page 2: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Presentation outline

Scheduling packets in packet-switched networks Problem formulation Relative fairness bound Absolute fairness bound

Apportionment problem Formulation Properties RFB transformation

PRV problem Formulation AFB transformation

Conclusions

Page 3: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Scheduling packets in a packet switched network

n flows single output from the buffer of packets wi – weight of flow i, i = 1, …, n

Li – size of packet i, i = 1, …, n

Fair sequence?

Page 4: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Relative fairness

SiP(t1, t2) – service obtained by flow i in time interval

(t1, t2) using discipline P

j

Pj

i

Pi

ji w

ttS

w

ttSttRF 2121

21,

,,,

t1 t2

Page 5: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Relative fairness bound

t1 t2

j

Pj

i

Pi

ji w

ttS

w

ttSttRF 2121

21,

,,,

21,21 ,max, ttRFttRF jij

i

2121 ,max, ttRFttRF ii

21),(

,max21

ttRFRFBtt

j

Pj

i

Pi

ttji w

ttS

w

ttSRFB 2121

,,,

,,max

21

Page 6: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Generalized Processor Sharing Policy

j

iGj

Gi

w

w

ttS

ttS

21

21

,

,

Page 7: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Generalized Processor Sharing Policy

W

wCttttS iG

i )(, 1221

C – resource capacity (rate)

n

jjwW

1

Page 8: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Absolute fairness bound

i

Gi

i

Pi

i w

ttS

w

ttSttAF 2121

21

,,,

2121 ,max, ttAFttAF ii

21),(

,max21

ttAFAFBtt

i

Gi

i

Pi

tti w

ttS

w

ttSAFB 2121

,,

,,max

21

Page 9: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Apportionment problemformulation

n – number of states p = [p1, …, pn] – vector of populations h – house size a = [a1, …, an] – vector of apportionment: ha

n

ii

1

j

j

i

i

ji a

p

a

pm

,ax minimize

Page 10: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Apportionment problemproperties

House monotone methods

No method minimizing is house monotone.

Population monotone methods

Every population monotone method is also house monotone.

a'aa'a 1,, hMhM pp

jjii

jjii

j

i

j

i

aaaa

or

aaaa

p

p

p

phMhM

''

''

'

',, p'p a'a

j

j

i

i

ji a

p

a

pm

,ax

Page 11: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Apportionment

number of states

population (pi) of state i

number of seats (ai) assigned to state i in a parliament of size h

n – number of flows

wi – weight of flow i

xi – number of packets of flow i sent in the considered time interval of length h

xi Li /C – number of time units assigned to flow i in the considered time interval

Packet scheduling

RFB transformation

Page 12: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Relation between RFB and the apportionment problem

iipi LxttS *, 21

j

jj

i

ii

jitt w

Lx

w

LxRFB

,),( 2,1

max

j

Pj

i

Pi

jitt w

ttS

w

ttSRFB 2121

,,,

,,max

21

t1 t2

j

j

i

i

h,i,j p

a

p

aCRFB max

Caj

Page 13: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Comments

Theorem

There exists no house monotone method minimizing the RFB measure.

Conclusion

There exists no population monotone method minimizing the RFB measure.

Page 14: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Product Rate Variation

10%

15%

25%

50%

10 pcs

15 pcs

25 pcs

50 pcs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

100/10=10

100/15=6.67

100/25=4

100/50=2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Page 15: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Product Rate Variation

iik krx

xik – number of copies of product i completed by time k

di – demand for product i in the planning horizon

i – weight of product i

minimize

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

k

iikiki

krx max,

iiki krx

n

ii

ii

d

dr

1

Page 16: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Relation between AFB and the PRV problem

assume Li = L

t1 t2

C

Lktt 12

k packets

Page 17: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

PRV

number of products

total number of copies completed in k time units

demand (di) of product i

number of copies (xik) of product i completed in k time units

n – number of flows

k – total number of packets sent

wi – weight of client i

xi – number of packets of flow i sent in the sequence of k packets

Packet scheduling

AFB transformation

Page 18: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Relation between AFB and the PRV problem

LxttS ipi *, 21

i

Gi

i

Pi

tti wttS

wttS

AFB 2121

21

,,max

,,

W

wCttttS iG

i )(, 1221

Ww

LC

ttxwL

AFB ii

itti

1221 ,,

max

Fi

ri

iiiki

krxAFB ,

max

k

C

Lktt 12

W

wCttLx

wAFB i

ii

tti12

,,

1max

21

Page 19: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Comments

AFB with identical packet length can be transformed to the PRV problem in the min-max version.

PRV and thus AFB can be effectively solved as a linear bottleneck assignment problem.

Page 20: Comments on the relative and absolute fairness measures Joanna Józefowska *) Łukasz Józefowski *) Wiesław Kubiak **) *) Poznań University of Technology

Further research

Transformation of the AFB for the problem with arbitrary packet length.

Analysis of properties of schedules and algorithms minimizing the AFB.