1 / 28

Windows Scheduling as a Restricted Version of Bin-packing.

Windows Scheduling as a Restricted Version of Bin-packing. Amotz Bar-Noy Brooklyn College Richard Ladner Tami Tamir University of Washington. Example: Input:. A packing in 3 bins:. 0.7. 0.45. 0.45. 0.25. 0.3. 0.2. 0.7. 0.45. 0.45. 0.3. 0.25. 0.2. 0.3. 0.3. 0.2. 0.2.

byron
Download Presentation

Windows Scheduling as a Restricted Version of Bin-packing.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Windows Scheduling as a Restricted Version of Bin-packing. Amotz Bar-Noy Brooklyn College Richard Ladner TamiTamir University of Washington

  2. Example: Input: A packing in 3 bins: 0.7 0.45 0.45 0.25 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.45 0.45 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 The Bin Packing Problem • Input: Items of sizes at most 1 • Output: A feasible packing in bins of size 1 • Goal: minimize number of bins used.

  3. Example: Input: W={2,4,5} Output: one channel … 4 2 5 2 4 2 5 2 4 2 5 2 There is at least one transmission of in any window of 5 time-slots There is at least one transmission of in any window of 4 time-slots 5 4 The Windows Scheduling Problem • Input: A set W={w1,w2,…,wn} of requests for periodic broadcast. A request with window wi needs to be broadcasted at least once in any window of wi time-slots. • Output: A feasible windows scheduling of W. • Goal: minimize number of channels used.

  4. w = 3 w = 4 w = 5 The Windows Scheduling Problem • Windows Scheduling has applications in media delivery systems, and in machine maintenance. • Client-server-provider. • QoS in push system. • - MoD systems. • Periodic job-scheduling Transmit the weather at least once in any 3 time units. Replace batteries at least once a week

  5. 4 2 5 2 4 2 5 … 2 1/2 1/4 1/5 Windows Scheduling vs. Bin Packing • It is possible to schedule W={2,4,5} on one channel. It must be that • In particular, it is possible to pack in a single bin. Bandwidth requests A packing A schedule

  6. 6 2 2 2 6 2 2 Windows Scheduling vs. Bin Packing • In general, if W={w1,w2,…,wn}can be scheduled on h channels then and the schedule induces a packing. • However, it might be possible to pack {1/wi} into h bins, but not to schedule W on h channels. Example: W={2,3,6} 1/2 1/3 1/6 A packing No schedule

  7. Unit Fractions Bin Packing • A Unit Fraction: A fraction of the form 1/w for an integer w. • Windows Scheduling (WS) is a restricted version of Unit Fractions Bin Packing (UFBP). • Our work considers: • The relationship between BP and UFBP. • The relationship between UFBP and WS. • Offline and Online versions of both problems. WS is UFBP with additional requirements. UFBP isolates the ‘partition’ problem of WS.

  8. Let.Clearly,OPT(W)  H(W). • We show: An algorithm that uses at most H(W)+1 bins (additive error of one for any input). Offline UFBP • Input: integersW={w1,w2,…,wn}. • Goal: Bin packing of {1/w1, 1/w2,…,1/wn}. • Is it NP-hard? We only know it is NP-hard for bins of arbitrary size.

  9. Any-fit Decreasing for Offline UFBP Sort the items such that 1/w1 1/w2   1/wn Pack the items in this order, each item is placed in any open bin that can accommodate it, or in a new bin, if none exists. Theorem: The number of bins used is at most Proof idea: After packing all the items of size at least 1/k : (i) There are at most k-1 non-full bins, and (ii) Each of the non-full bins is at least 1-1/k full.

  10. - Can be packed in two bins: - Will be packed in three bins: Any-fit Decreasing for Offline UFBP Remark: The analysis is tight (the alg. is not optimal) Example: - in decreasing order.

  11. On-line UFBP • Input: a sequence ofintegers =w1, w2,…, wn • Goal: Online Bin packing of 1/w1, 1/w2,…, 1/wn (Pack 1/wi with n,wi+1, wi+2,…, wn unknown) • Recall: For regular BP, there are close lower and upper bounds on the competitive ratio of any online algorithm (1.54 [van Vliet] and 1.59 [Seiden]). • Can we do better with unit fractions?

  12. Upper Bound: An algorithm. • Performance of traditional ‘fit’ algorithms: • Next-fit is 2-competitive (like BP) • First-fit, Best-fit are 1.2-competitive (1.7 for BP [JDUGG 74]) On-line UFBP • Recall: • Lower Bound: H() + (ln H()) For any on-line algorithmA, andfor any integerh > 0, there exists a sequencesuch that H() > h andAuses at leastH()+(ln H())bins.

  13. Example: • A better one: 4 4 2 2 8 8 8 8 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 8 8 8 8 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 On-line Windows Scheduling • Input: a sequence ofintegers=w1,w2,…. • Goal: On-line windows scheduling of w1, w2,…. on a minimal number of channels. 4 8 8 2 4 8 8 2

  14. For any sequence  in which for all i, , Ac schedules  on H() channels. Algorithm for On-line WS Building blocks:Optimal on-line algorithms for ‘easy’ sequences: - For any odd cwe present an algorithm Ac such that: Specifically: A1 schedules optimally sequences over {1, 2, 4,…,2j}. A3 schedules optimally sequences over {3, 6, 12,…, 3·2j}. Ac schedules optimally sequences over {c, 2c, 4c,…, c·2j}.

  15. Optimal Algorithm for Powers-of-2 A1 schedules optimally sequences over {1, 2, 4,…,2j}. - Based onRecursive Round Robin (RRR) trees

  16. RRk schedule: Iterate over the RRk-1 schedules, S1,S2,…, S, for some >1. A segment with window w in some Si has window w in the new schedule. S1 S2 S … … S1 S2 S … z1 z2 z RRk-1 RR1 RRk Recursive Round Robin (RRR) Schedules: RR1 schedule: For some , iterate over z1,z2,…,z. All the segments have window .

  17. a b a b a b a b a b a b a a b b c d e c d e c d e c d e c c d d e e a b a b a b a b a b c d e c d e c d e a c b d a e b c a d b e a c b d a e b Tree Representation of RRR Schedules An RR2-schedule from S1 and S2: S1: RR1 S2: RR1

  18. c d e Tree Representation of RRR Schedules An RR3 schedule: f a b RR2 a c b d a e b c a d b e a c b d a e b RR1 f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f RR3 … a f c f b f a f e f

  19. 8 16 17 An RRR Schedule of [1..25] Harmonic window scheduling of 1..25 on 4 channels. 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 5 18 19 22 23 10 11 12 13 14 15 24 25 20 21 The window of a leaf k is idegree(vi), for all vi on the path from the root to the leaf.

  20. 2 4 8 16 16 Optimal Algorithm for Powers-of-2 • A1 schedules optimally sequences over {1, 2, 4,…,2j}. • Based onRecursive Round Robin (RRR) trees. • In a binary RRR tree, a leaf whose depth is d represents an item with window 2d. • A lace binary tree: a single leaf in each depth <h, two leaves at depth h. A lace binary tree of height 4

  21. Optimal Algorithm for Powers-of-2 • To schedule w=2v : • If there is an open 2v-leaf, use it. • Otherwise, let u<v be the minimal such that an open 2u-leaf exists. Build a lace binary tree of height v-u rooted at the leaf. • If no open 2u-leaf exists open a new tree (like having an open 2u-leaf).

  22. Optimal Algorithm for Power-of-2 Example:  = 4,8,4,2,4

  23. Optimal Algorithm for Powers-of-2 • Main arguments in optimality proof: • During the execution, the forest contains at most one open leaf in each depth. • When A1 opens a new tree for vi, the total width of the open leaves is at most (d is the maximum depth of an active tree) If the root degree is c (for an odd number c): The algorithm is optimal for sequences over {c, 2c, 4c,…, c·2j}.

  24. Algorithm A* for On-line WS k • Each request w in the (arbitrary) on-line sequence, is rounded down to a number w’=c2v, c{1,3,…,2k-1}, such that w-w’ is minimized. • All the requests rounded to c2v’ (for some v’)are packed (optimally) by Ac Theorem: The total number of channels used is at most One for each possible choice of ‘c’ Due to the rounding (bandwidth loss)

  25. - rounded to 6, packed by A3. 7 - rounded to 8, packed by A1. 10 - rounded to 6, packed by A3. 6 - rounded to 4, packed by A1. 5 - rounded to 2, packed by A1. 2 - rounded to 8, packed by A1. 9 5 4 2 2 10 9 8 8 2 2 4 5 2 2 2 2 4 5 2 2 8 9 10 8 2 2 5 4 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 7 6 6 7 6 6 6 - rounded to 3, packed by A3. 3 Example : A* 2 In A2*each request is rounded to the nearest 2v or 3·2v Input: 5 9 3 7 10 2 6 A1: {1, 2, 4,…,2j} A3: {3,6,12,…,3·2j}

  26. If H() is known, then minimizes the number of channels for this algorithm. • In A*, k is increased dynamically as H() is increased. At each time (k-1)2 < H()  k2. • Theorem: The number of channels used by A* to schedule  is at most The Algorithm A* Recall: The total number of channels used by Ak* is at most • What is a good choice of k?

  27. Summary of Results: UFBP vs. WS APX-hard (reduction from 3D3M).

  28. Increase for WS? hardness unknown Reduce it? Same for UFBP and WS? Open Problems WS with migrations

More Related