The effects of temporary sessions on network performance

We consider a packet network, in which packets are injected in sessions along fixed paths. Packet movement is restricted by link bandwidth. In case of contention, a contention resolution protocol determines which packets proceed. In the permanent session model, a fixed set of connections is present in the network at all times. In the temporary session model, connections come and go over time. In this paper we compare network performance in these two models in terms of stability and end-to-end delay. We provide the first separation of the two models in terms of stability. In particular, we show that generalized processor sharing (GPS) can be unstable with temporary sessions, whereas GPS is known to be stable and have polynomial delay bounds with permanent sessions. We also observe that the relative performance of protocols can differ in the two models. For example, in the temporary session model the protocol farthest-to-go (FTG) is known to be stable and therefore outperforms GPS. However, in the permanent session model we show that FTG can suffer exponential delays and is therefore outperformed by GPS. Although polynomial delay bounds are easy to obtain for permanent sessions, this is not the case when sessions can be temporary. We show that a common framework for bounding delays can only lead to superpolynomial bounds in the temporary session model. We also construct superpolynomial lower bounds on delay for a large class of deterministic, distributed protocols that includes the longest-in-system protocol.

[1]  Scott Shenker,et al.  Analysis and simulation of a fair queueing algorithm , 1989, SIGCOMM '89.

[2]  Rene L. Cruz,et al.  A calculus for network delay, Part I: Network elements in isolation , 1991, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[3]  Rene L. Cruz,et al.  A calculus for network delay, Part II: Network analysis , 1991, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[4]  Scott Shenker,et al.  Supporting real-time applications in an Integrated Services Packet Network: architecture and mechanism , 1992, SIGCOMM '92.

[5]  Abhay Parekh,et al.  A generalized processor sharing approach to flow control in integrated services networks-the single node case , 1992, [Proceedings] IEEE INFOCOM '92: The Conference on Computer Communications.

[6]  Abhay Parekh,et al.  A generalized processor sharing approach to flow control in integrated services networks-the multiple node case , 1993, IEEE INFOCOM '93 The Conference on Computer Communications, Proceedings.

[7]  Abhay Parekh,et al.  Optimal multiplexing on a single link: delay and buffer requirements , 1994, Proceedings of INFOCOM '94 Conference on Computer Communications.

[8]  Abhay Parekh,et al.  A generalized processor sharing approach to flow control in integrated services networks: the multiple node case , 1994, TNET.

[9]  Hui Zhang,et al.  Service disciplines for guaranteed performance service in packet-switching networks , 1995, Proc. IEEE.

[10]  Allan Borodin,et al.  Adversarial queueing theory , 1996, STOC '96.

[11]  Yuval Rabani,et al.  Distributed packet switching in arbitrary networks , 1996, STOC '96.

[12]  Dimitrios Stiliadis,et al.  Traffic scheduling in packet-switched networks: analysis, design, and implementation , 1996 .

[13]  Baruch Awerbuch,et al.  Universal stability results for greedy contention-resolution protocols , 1996, Proceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Computer Science.

[14]  Domenico Ferrari,et al.  Exact admission control for networks with a bounded delay service , 1996, TNET.

[15]  Roch Guérin,et al.  Efficient network QoS provisioning based on per node traffic shaping , 1996, TNET.

[16]  Rafail Ostrovsky,et al.  Universal O(congestion + dilation + log1+εN) local control packet switching algorithms , 1997, STOC '97.

[17]  Scott Shenker,et al.  Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service , 1997, RFC.

[18]  Jörg Liebeherr,et al.  A near-optimal packet scheduler for QoS networks , 1997, Proceedings of INFOCOM '97.

[19]  Debasis Mitra,et al.  Design of generalized processor sharing schedulers which statistically multiplex heterogeneous QoS classes , 1999, IEEE INFOCOM '99. Conference on Computer Communications. Proceedings. Eighteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies. The Future is Now (Cat. No.99CH36320).

[20]  Christian Scheideler,et al.  Locally efficient on-line strategies for routing packets along fixed paths , 1999, SODA '99.

[21]  Mor Harchol-Balter,et al.  General Dynamic Routing with Per-Packet Delay Guarantees of O(Distance + 1/Session Rate) , 2000, SIAM J. Comput..

[22]  Baruch Awerbuch,et al.  Universal-stability results and performance bounds for greedy contention-resolution protocols , 2001, JACM.