The performance of GPS and EDF with temporary sessions

We study the behavior of packet scheduling protocols in a temporary sessions model in which sessions come and go over time. We first show that, in this setting, the standard delay bound for the well-studied generalized processor sharing (GPS) protocol can be exceeded by an arbitrary amount. In extreme cases, GPS can actually be unstable. In contrast, we then show that it is possible to choose deadlines so that the earliest-deadline-first (EDF) protocol is always stable. We illustrate our results by analysis and simulations.

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

[2]  Abhay Parekh,et al.  A generalized processor sharing approach to flow control in integrated services networks: the single-node case , 1993, TNET.

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

[4]  Vijay Sivaraman,et al.  End-to-end statistical delay service under GPS and EDF scheduling: a comparison study , 2001, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2001. Conference on Computer Communications. Twentieth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Society (Cat. No.01CH37213).

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

[6]  Lisa Zhang,et al.  The effects of temporary sessions on network performance , 2000, SODA '00.

[7]  Abhay Parekh,et al.  Optimal multiplexing on a single link: delay and buffer requirements , 1997, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[8]  Jim Kurose,et al.  On per-session end-to-end delay distributions and the call admission problem for real-time applications with QOS requirements , 1993, SIGCOMM 1993.

[9]  Allan Borodin,et al.  Adversarial queuing theory , 2001, JACM.

[10]  David Clark,et al.  Supporting Real-Time Applications in an Integrated Services Packet Network: Architecture and Mechanism , 1992, SIGCOMM.

[11]  Edward W. Knightly,et al.  Schedulability criterion and performance analysis of coordinated schedulers , 2001 .

[12]  Ashish Goel,et al.  Source routing and scheduling in packet networks , 2001, Proceedings 2001 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing.

[13]  Matthew Andrews,et al.  Probabilistic end-to-end delay bounds for earliest deadline first scheduling , 2000, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2000. Conference on Computer Communications. Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (Cat. No.00CH37064).

[14]  Roch Guérin,et al.  Efficient network QoS provisioning based on per node traffic shaping , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM '96. Conference on Computer Communications.

[15]  Harrick M. Vin,et al.  Generalized guaranteed rate scheduling algorithms: a framework , 1997, TNET.

[16]  Vijay Sivaraman,et al.  Providing end-to-end statistical delay guarantees with earliest deadline first scheduling and per-hop traffic shaping , 2000, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2000. Conference on Computer Communications. Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (Cat. No.00CH37064).

[17]  K. Sivarajan.  Eecient Network Qos Provisioning Based on per Node Traac Shaping , 1996 .

[18]  Edward W. Knightly,et al.  Coordinated network scheduling: a framework for end-to-end services , 2000, Proceedings 2000 International Conference on Network Protocols.