Depth-Latency Tradeoffs in Multicast Tree Algorithms

The construction of multicast trees is complicated by the need to balance a number of important objectives, including: minimizing latencies, minimizing depth/hops, and bounding the degree. In this paper, we study the problem of determining a degree-bounded directed spanning tree of minimum average-latency in a complete graph where the inter-node latencies are used to determine a metric. In particular, we focus on measuring the effects on average latency when imposing depth constraints (i.e., bounds on hop count) on degree-bounded spanning trees. The general problem is a well known NP-hard problem, and several works have proposed approximate solutions which aim at minimizing either depth or latency. In this work, we present a new heuristic algorithm which improves upon previous solutions by considering both depth and latency and the tradeoffs between them. Our algorithms are shown to improve the theoretical worst-case approximation factors, and we demonstrate improvements under empirical evaluation. Our experiments examine and analyze several different topologies, including, low-dimensional random geometric networks, random transit-stub networks, and high- dimensional hypercube networks. We show how our solutions can be applied in the context of enabling multicasting support in locality aware peer-to-peer overlay networks.

[1]  Peter Druschel,et al.  Pastry: Scalable, distributed object location and routing for large-scale peer-to- , 2001 .

[2]  Sonia Fahmy,et al.  Topology-aware overlay networks for group communication , 2002, NOSSDAV '02.

[3]  Bobby Bhattacharjee,et al.  Scalable application layer multicast , 2002, SIGCOMM 2002.

[4]  F. Leighton,et al.  Introduction to Parallel Algorithms and Architectures: Arrays, Trees, Hypercubes , 1991 .

[5]  Ellen W. Zegura,et al.  How to model an internetwork , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM '96. Conference on Computer Communications.

[6]  Fred S. Annexstein,et al.  Latency effects on reachability in large-scale peer-to-peer networks , 2001, SPAA '01.

[7]  Madhu Sudan,et al.  The minimum latency problem , 1994, STOC '94.

[8]  Samir Khuller,et al.  Construction of an efficient overlay multicast infrastructure for real-time applications , 2003, IEEE INFOCOM 2003. Twenty-second Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37428).

[9]  Y. Charlie Hu,et al.  Borg: a hybrid protocol for scalable application-level multicast in peer-to-peer networks , 2003, NOSSDAV '03.

[10]  Miguel Castro,et al.  One ring to rule them all: service discovery and binding in structured peer-to-peer overlay networks , 2002, EW 10.

[11]  Mark Allman On the performance of middleboxes , 2003, IMC '03.

[12]  Christophe Diot,et al.  Deployment issues for the IP multicast service and architecture , 2000, IEEE Netw..

[13]  Antony I. T. Rowstron,et al.  Pastry: Scalable, Decentralized Object Location, and Routing for Large-Scale Peer-to-Peer Systems , 2001, Middleware.

[14]  Marcel Waldvogel,et al.  Dimensioning server access bandwidth and multicast routing in overlay networks , 2001, NOSSDAV '01.

[15]  Frank Thomson Leighton Introduction to parallel algorithms and architectures: arrays , 1992 .

[16]  Anne-Marie Kermarrec,et al.  Scribe: A Large-Scale and Decentralized , 2002 .

[17]  Jonathan S. Turner,et al.  Routing in overlay multicast networks , 2002, Proceedings.Twenty-First Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies.

[18]  Robert Simon,et al.  End-host multicasting in support of distributed real-time simulation systems , 2004, 37th Annual Simulation Symposium, 2004. Proceedings..

[19]  Amitabh Sinha,et al.  Approximating the Degree-Bounded Minimum Diameter Spanning Tree Problem , 2005, Algorithmica.