Competitve buffer management for shared-memory switches

We consider buffer management policies for shared memory packet switches supporting Quality of Service (QoS). There are two interesting dimensions in which the setting may different. The first is the packet size, whether all the packets of the same fixed size or do packets have variable length. The second is the value of the packets, do all the packets have the same value or do different packets have different values. The goal of the buffer management policy is to maximize the total value of packets transmitted. Our main result is to show that the well-known Longest Queue Drop (LQD) policy in 2-competitive and at least √2-competitive for the case of fixed size and value packets. We also show a 4/3 general lower bound on the competitiveness in this case. We extend the results to the case of variable size fixed value packets, and derive a slightly worse bound. For the case of variable value we derive randomized policy whose competitive ratio in logarithmic on the ratio of the maximal to minimal value.

[1]  John A. Copeland,et al.  Buffer management for shared-memory ATM switches , 2000, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[2]  Yishay Mansour,et al.  Loss-bounded analysis for differentiated services , 2001, ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms.

[3]  Boaz Patt-Shamir,et al.  Optimal smoothing schedules for real-time streams , 2004, PODC '00.

[4]  Adi Rosén,et al.  Scheduling policies for CIOQ switches , 2003, SPAA '03.

[5]  Amos Fiat,et al.  On-line load balancing with applications to machine scheduling and virtual circuit routing , 1993, STOC.

[6]  Edward J. Coyle,et al.  An optimal buffer management policy for high-performance packet switching , 1991, IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference GLOBECOM '91: Countdown to the New Millennium. Conference Record.

[7]  I..  Buffer Management in a Packet Switch , 2022 .

[8]  Yishay Mansour,et al.  Competitive queueing policies for QoS switches , 2003, SODA '03.

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

[10]  Ashok K. Agrawala,et al.  On the Design of Optimal Policy for Sharing Finite Buffers , 1984, IEEE Trans. Commun..

[11]  Hans Kröner,et al.  Comparative performance study of space priority mechanisms for ATM networks , 1990, Proceedings. IEEE INFOCOM '90: Ninth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies@m_The Multiple Facets of Integration.

[12]  Zheng Wang,et al.  An Architecture for Differentiated Services , 1998, RFC.

[13]  Farouk Kamoun,et al.  Analysis of Shared Finite Storage in a Computer Network Node Environment Under General Traffic Conditions , 1980, IEEE Trans. Commun..

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

[15]  A. K. Choudhury,et al.  Dynamic queue length thresholds for shared-memory packet switches , 1998, TNET.

[16]  Van Jacobson,et al.  A Two-bit Differentiated Services Architecture for the Internet , 1999, RFC.

[17]  David L. Black,et al.  An Architecture for Differentiated Service , 1998 .

[18]  Yishay Mansour,et al.  Harmonic buffer management policy for shared memory switches , 2002, Proceedings.Twenty-First Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies.

[19]  Yishay Mansour,et al.  Competitive queue policies for differentiated services , 2000, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2000. Conference on Computer Communications. Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (Cat. No.00CH37064).

[20]  Boaz Patt-Shamir,et al.  Optimal smoothing schedules for real-time streams (extended abstract) , 2000, PODC.

[21]  Boaz Patt-Shamir,et al.  Buffer overflow management in QoS switches , 2001, STOC '01.