Relative interval analysis of paging algorithms on access graphs

Access graphs, which have been used previously in connection to competitive analysis and relative worst order analysis to model locality of reference in paging, are considered in connection with relative interval analysis. The algorithms LRU, FIFO, FWF, and FAR are compared using the path, star, and cycle access graphs. In this model, some of the results obtained are not surprising. However, although LRU is found to be strictly better than FIFO on paths, it has worse performance on stars, cycles, and complete graphs, in this model. We solve an open question from Dorrigiv et al. (2009) 13], obtaining tight bounds on the relationship between LRU and FIFO with relative interval analysis.

[1]  Kim S. Larsen,et al.  List Factoring and Relative Worst Order Analysis , 2012, Algorithmica.

[2]  Anna R. Karlin,et al.  Competitive snoopy caching , 1986, 27th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1986).

[3]  Allan Borodin,et al.  Competitive paging with locality of reference , 1991, STOC '91.

[4]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Beyond competitive analysis [on-line algorithms] , 1994, Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[5]  Neal E. Young,et al.  On-Line Paging Against Adversarially Biased Random Inputs , 2000, J. Algorithms.

[6]  Joan Boyar,et al.  The relative worst order ratio for online algorithms , 2007, TALG.

[7]  Peter J. Denning,et al.  The working set model for program behavior , 1968, CACM.

[8]  Peter J. Denning,et al.  Working Sets Past and Present , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[9]  Sandy Irani,et al.  A Comparison of Performance Measures for Online Algorithms , 2009, WADS.

[10]  Joan Boyar,et al.  The relative worst order ratio applied to paging , 2005, SODA '05.

[11]  Susanne Albers,et al.  On paging with locality of reference , 2002, STOC '02.

[12]  Alejandro López-Ortiz,et al.  On the relative dominance of paging algorithms , 2009, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[13]  Amos Fiat,et al.  Randomized and multipointer paging with locality of reference , 1995, STOC '95.

[14]  Neal E. Young,et al.  Thek-server dual and loose competitiveness for paging , 1994, Algorithmica.

[15]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules , 1985, CACM.

[16]  Amos Fiat,et al.  Experimental Studies of Access Graph Based Heuristics: Beating the LRU Standard? , 1997, SODA.

[17]  Marek Chrobak,et al.  SIGACT news online algorithms column 8 , 2005, SIGA.

[18]  Anna R. Karlin,et al.  Markov Paging , 2000, SIAM J. Comput..

[19]  Alejandro López-Ortiz,et al.  On the Separation and Equivalence of Paging Strategies and Other Online Algorithms , 2018, Algorithmica.

[20]  Amos Fiat,et al.  Truly online paging with locality of reference , 1997, Proceedings 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[21]  Marek Chrobak,et al.  LRU Is Better than FIFO , 1999, SODA '98.

[22]  Eric Torng.  A Unified Analysis of Paging and Caching , 1998, Algorithmica.

[23]  Joan Boyar,et al.  Access Graphs Results for LRU versus FIFO under Relative Worst Order Analysis , 2012, SWAT.

[24]  Allan Borodin,et al.  Online computation and competitive analysis , 1998 .