Fair online load balancing

We revisit from a fairness point of view the problem of online load balancing in the restricted assignment model and the 1-∞ model. We consider both a job-centric and a machine-centric view of fairness, as proposed by Goel et al. (In: Symposium on discrete algorithms, pp. 384–390, 2005). These notions are equivalent to the approximate notion of prefix competitiveness proposed by Kleinberg et al. (In: Proceedings of the 40th annual symposium on foundations of computer science, p. 568, 2001), as well as to the notion of approximate majorization, and they generalize the well studied notion of max-min fairness.We resolve a question posed by Goel et al. (In: Symposium on discrete algorithms, pp. 384–390, 2005) proving that the greedy strategy is globally O(log m)-fair, where m denotes the number of machines. This result improves upon the analysis of Goel et al. (In: Symposium on discrete algorithms, pp. 384–390, 2005) who showed that the greedy strategy is globally O(log n)-fair, where n is the number of jobs. Typically, n≫m, and therefore our improvement is significant. Our proof matches the known lower bound for the problem with respect to the measure of global fairness.The improved bound is obtained by analyzing, in a more accurate way, the more general restricted assignment model studied previously in Azar et al. (J. Algorithms 18:221–237, 1995). We provide an alternative bound which is not worse than the bounds of Azar et al. (J. Algorithms 18:221–237, 1995), and it is strictly better in many cases. The bound we prove is, in fact, much more general and it bounds the load on any prefix of most loaded machines. As a corollary from this more general bound we find that the greedy algorithm results in an assignment that is globally O(log m)-balanced. The last result generalizes the previous result of Goel et al. (In: Symposium on discrete algorithms, pp. 384–390, 2005) who proved that the greedy algorithm yields an assignment that is globally O(log m)-balanced for the 1-∞ model.

[1]  Amos Fiat,et al.  On-line routing of virtual circuits with applications to load balancing and machine scheduling , 1997, JACM.

[2]  Amit Kumar,et al.  Fairness Measures for Resource Allocation , 2006, SIAM J. Comput..

[3]  Yuval Shavitt,et al.  Maximum Flow Routing with Weighted Max-Min Fairness , 2004, QofIS.

[4]  Ashish Goel,et al.  Approximate majorization and fair online load balancing , 2001, TALG.

[5]  Raj Jain,et al.  A Quantitative Measure Of Fairness And Discrimination For Resource Allocation In Shared Computer Systems , 1998, ArXiv.

[6]  Clifford Stein,et al.  On the existence of schedules that are near-optimal for both makespan and total weighted completion time , 1997, Oper. Res. Lett..

[7]  Ashish Goel,et al.  Combining Fairness with Throughput: Online Routing with Multiple Objectives , 2001, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[8]  Jeffrey M. Jaffe,et al.  Bottleneck Flow Control , 1981, IEEE Trans. Commun..

[9]  Clifford Stein,et al.  Improved bicriteria existence theorems for scheduling , 2002, SODA '99.

[10]  Joseph Naor,et al.  Improved bounds for online routing and packing via a primal-dual approach , 2006, 2006 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'06).

[11]  Ashish Goel,et al.  Simultaneous Optimization via Approximate Majorization for Concave Profits or Convex Costs , 2006, Algorithmica.

[12]  Gerhard J. Woeginger,et al.  All-norm approximation algorithms , 2002, J. Algorithms.

[13]  Yossi Azar On-line Load Balancing , 1996, Online Algorithms.

[14]  Yossi Azar,et al.  The competitiveness of on-line assignments , 1992, SODA '92.

[15]  I. Olkin,et al.  Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and Its Applications , 1980 .

[16]  Dimitri P. Bertsekas,et al.  Data Networks , 1986 .