The Power of Reordering for Online Minimum Makespan Scheduling

In the classic minimum makespan scheduling problem, we are given an input sequence of jobs with processing times. A scheduling algorithm has to assign the jobs to m parallel machines. The objective is to minimize the makespan, which is the time it takes until all jobs are processed. In this paper, we consider online scheduling algorithms without preemption. However, we do not require that each arriving job has to be assigned immediately to one of the machines. A reordering buffer with limited storage capacity can be used to reorder the input sequence in a restricted fashion so as to schedule the jobs with a smaller makespan. This is a natural extension of lookahead. We present an extensive study of the power and limits of online reordering for minimum makespan scheduling. As main result, we give, for m identical machines, tight and, in comparison to the problem without reordering, much improved bounds on the competitive ratio for minimum makespan scheduling with reordering buffers. Depending on m, the achieved competitive ratio lies between 4/3 and 1.4659. This optimal ratio is achieved with a buffer of size Theta(m). We show that larger buffer sizes do not result in an additional advantage and that a buffer of size Omega(m) is necessary to achieve this competitive ratio. Further, we present several algorithms for different buffer sizes. Among others, we introduce, for every buffer size k isin [1, (m+ 1)/2], a (2 middot 1/(m middot k+ 1))-competitive algorithm, which nicely generalizes the well-known result of Graham. For m uniformly related machines, we give a scheduling algorithm that achieves a competitive ratio of 2 with a reordering buffer of size m. Considering that the best knowncompetitive ratio for uniformly related machines without reordering is 5.828, this result emphasizes the power of online reordering further more.

[1]  Leah Epstein,et al.  Online scheduling with a buffer on related machines , 2010, J. Comb. Optim..

[2]  Susanne Albers,et al.  New Results on Web Caching with Request Reordering , 2004, SPAA '04.

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

[4]  Leah Epstein,et al.  Optimal preemptive semi-online scheduling to minimize makespan on two related machines , 2002, Oper. Res. Lett..

[5]  David B. Shmoys,et al.  A Polynomial Approximation Scheme for Scheduling on Uniform Processors: Using the Dual Approximation Approach , 1988, SIAM J. Comput..

[6]  Joseph Y.-T. Leung,et al.  Handbook of Scheduling: Algorithms, Models, and Performance Analysis , 2004 .

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

[8]  Susanne Albers Better Bounds for Online Scheduling , 1999, SIAM J. Comput..

[9]  Eric Torng,et al.  The k-client problem , 1997, SODA '97.

[10]  Christian Sohler,et al.  Reducing State Changes with a Pipeline Buffer , 2004, VMV.

[11]  Ramaswamy Chandrasekaran,et al.  Improved Bounds for the Online Scheduling Problem , 2003, SIAM J. Comput..

[12]  Eric Torng,et al.  Generating adversaries for request-answer games , 2000, SODA '00.

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

[14]  Shaohua Yu,et al.  Online scheduling with reassignment , 2008, Oper. Res. Lett..

[15]  Donald K. Friesen,et al.  Tighter Bounds for LPT Scheduling on Uniform Processors , 1987, SIAM J. Comput..

[16]  Zsolt Tuza,et al.  Semi on-line algorithms for the partition problem , 1997, Oper. Res. Lett..

[17]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  Combining request scheduling with web caching , 2004, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[18]  James B. Orlin,et al.  A Parametric Worst Case Analysis of the LPT Heuristic for Two Uniform Machines , 1997, Oper. Res..

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

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

[21]  Edward F. Grove Online bin packing with lookahead , 1995, SODA '95.

[22]  Ronald L. Graham,et al.  Bounds on Multiprocessing Timing Anomalies , 1969, SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics.

[23]  Rudolf Fleischer,et al.  On‐line scheduling revisited , 2000 .

[24]  Marek Karpinski,et al.  On-Line Load Balancing for Related Machines , 1997, J. Algorithms.

[25]  Gerhard J. Woeginger,et al.  New lower and upper bounds for on-line scheduling , 1994, Oper. Res. Lett..

[26]  Allan Borodin,et al.  A new measure for the study of on-line algorithms , 2005, Algorithmica.

[27]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .

[28]  Susanne Albers A Competitive Analysis of the List Update Problem with Lookahead , 1998, Theor. Comput. Sci..

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

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

[31]  Saks Michael An Online Scheduling Problem with Job Set-ups , 2000 .

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