An Experimental Study of Online Scheduling Algorithms

We present the first comprehensive experimental study of online algorithms for Graham's scheduling problem. In Graham's scheduling problem, which is a fundamental and extensively studied problem in schedulingtheory, a sequence of jobs has to be scheduled on m identical parallel machines so as to minimize the makespan. Graham gave an elegant algorithm that is (2-1/m)-competitive. Recently a number of new online algorithms were developed that achieve competitive ratios around 1.9. Since competitive analysis can only capture the worst case behavior of an algorithm a question often asked is: Are these new algorithms geared only towards a pathological case or do they perform better in practice, too? We address this question by analyzingthe algorithms on various job sequences. We have implemented a general testing environment that allows a user to generate jobs, execute the algorithms on arbitrary job sequences and obtain a graphical representation of the results. In our actual tests, we analyzed the algorithms (1) on real world jobs and (2) on jobs generated by probability distributions. It turns out that the performance of the algorithms depends heavily on the characteristics of the respective work load. On job sequences that are generated by standard probability distributions, Graham's strategy is clearly the best. However, on the real world jobs the new algorithms often outperform Graham's strategy. Our experimental study confirms theoretical results and gives some new insights into the problem. In particular, it shows that the techniques used by the new online algorithms are also interesting from a practical point of view.

[1]  Amos Fiat,et al.  New algorithms for an ancient scheduling problem , 1992, STOC '92.

[2]  M. Garey,et al.  Minimizing expected makespans on uniform processor systems , 1987, Advances in Applied Probability.

[3]  Susanne Albers,et al.  Better bounds for online scheduling , 1997, STOC '97.

[4]  Gerhard J. Woeginger,et al.  An On-Line Scheduling Heuristic With Better Worst Case Ratio Than Graham's List Scheduling , 1993, SIAM J. Comput..

[5]  E. G. Coffman,et al.  A Note on Expected Makespans for Largest-First Sequences of Independent Tasks on Two Processors , 1984, Math. Oper. Res..

[6]  György Turán,et al.  On the performance of on-line algorithms for partition problems , 1989, Acta Cybern..

[7]  Larry Rudolph,et al.  Job scheduling strategies for parallel processing : IPPS '96 Workshop, Honolulu, Hawaii, April 16, 1996 : proceedings , 1996 .

[8]  Mor Harchol-Balter.  The Effect of Heavy-Tailed Job Size Distributions on Computer System Design , 1999 .

[9]  David B. Shmoys,et al.  Scheduling to minimize average completion time: off-line and on-line algorithms , 1996, SODA '96.

[10]  Von Seggern,et al.  CRC standard curves and surfaces , 1993 .

[11]  Martin W. P. Savelsbergh,et al.  An experimental study of LP-based approximation algorithms for scheduling problems , 1998, SODA '98.

[12]  David P. Williamson,et al.  Scheduling Parallel Machines On-Line , 1995, SIAM J. Comput..

[13]  Yuval Rabani,et al.  A Better Lower Bound for On-Line Scheduling , 1994, Inf. Process. Lett..

[14]  David R. Karger,et al.  A better algorithm for an ancient scheduling problem , 1994, SODA '94.

[15]  Edward G. Coffman,et al.  Expected Makespans for Largest-First Multiprocessor Scheduling , 1984, Performance.

[16]  Ray Jain,et al.  The art of computer systems performance analysis - techniques for experimental design, measurement, simulation, and modeling , 1991, Wiley professional computing.

[17]  Larry Rudolph,et al.  Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing: IPPS '95 Workshop, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, April 25, 1995. Proceedings , 1995 .

[18]  Gerhard J. Woeginger,et al.  A Lower Bound for Randomized On-Line Scheduling Algorithms , 1994, Information Processing Letters.

[19]  Jirí Sgall.  A Lower Bound for Randomized On-Line Multiprocessor Scheduling , 1997, Inf. Process. Lett..

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

[21]  Jirí Sgall,et al.  On-line Scheduling , 1996, Online Algorithms.

[22]  Ronald L. Graham,et al.  Bounds for certain multiprocessing anomalies , 1966 .