1 / 20

Architectures and Algorithms for Resource Allocation

Architectures and Algorithms for Resource Allocation. Mounire El Houmaidi * , Mostafa A. Bassiouni * , and Guifang Li # * School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science # School of Optics/CREOL University of Central Florida. Outline. Motivation What is a Minimum Dominating Set (MDS)

Download Presentation

Architectures and Algorithms for Resource Allocation

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. Architectures and Algorithms for Resource Allocation Mounire El Houmaidi*, Mostafa A. Bassiouni*, and Guifang Li# *School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science #School of Optics/CREOL University of Central Florida

  2. Outline • Motivation • What is a Minimum Dominating Set (MDS) • How to find k-MDS • Algorithm • Example • What is Weighted MDS • Applications of k-MDS • Sparse placement of wavelength conversion • k-LOSS(k-BLK) and F-SEARCH • Weighted k-MDS for non-uniform traffic • Limited wavelength conversion • Placement of G-nodes for traffic grooming • Placement of FDLs • Conclusions

  3. 24 24 23 23 26 26 7 7 6 6 5 5 11 11 0 0 25 25 22 22 27 27 4 4 8 8 12 12 16 16 21 21 1 1 9 9 13 13 2 2 17 17 20 20 3 3 10 10 14 14 15 15 19 19 18 18 Motivation- Resource placement Optimize overall network performance by using dominating nodes [1-4] (U.S Long Haul Net.) 1. M. El Houmaidi et. al., J. Opt. Net., 2:6, (OSA, 2003) 2. M. El Houmaidi et. al., Proc. MASCOTS, (IEEE/ACM, 2003) 3. M. El Houmaidi et. al., J. Opt. Eng., 43:1, (SPIE, 2004) 4. M. El Houmaidi et. al., Proc. OFC, (IEEE, 2004) Optimize overall network performance by using the dominating nodes (U.S Long Haul topology) • G. Li et. al., JON, 2:6, 2003 • G. Li et. al., JOE, 43:1, 2004 • G. Li et. al., IEEE/ACM MASCOTS, 2003

  4. What is MDS • Given a graph G(V,E), determine a set with minimum number of vertices D V such that every vertex in the graph is either in D or is at distance k or less from at least one member in D. • NP-Complete problem [1,2] . • Heuristic algorithms for sub-optimal solution. • Highly connected nodes dominate the entire topology. 1. Karp, Pl. Press, 1972 2. Lund, et. al., J. ACM, 1994

  5. Definitions • Neighbor (v): is the set of nodes sharing a link with v. • k-Neighbor (v): is the set of nodes that are at most • within k hops away from a node v. • For k equals 0, 0-Neighbor(v) contains the node v only.

  6. Definitions (Cont.) • k-Connect(v): the connectivity index based on nodes within k hops of v is : • k-Master (v): represents the node p, member of k-Neighbor(v), • with the highest k-Connect value over all nodes m that are at • most k hops away from node v (i.e., all nodes mk-Neighbor(v))

  7. k-WMDS Algorithm • Initialize the dominating set k-WMDS to . • For all nodes v in G, Compute k-Connect (v). • Each node v sends CON(v) with computed k-Connect(v) to • all nodes in k-Neighbor (v). • Each node v finds its k-Master(v), denoted node m, based on • the values received in CON messages. • Each node v sends VOTE(v) message to m=k-Master(v). • The VOTE message informs node m that it is a master node . • Each node that receives VOTE(v) adds itself to k-WMDS.

  8. 24 23 26 7 6 5 11 0 25 22 27 4 8 12 16 21 1 9 13 2 17 20 3 10 14 15 19 18 U.S Long Haul network 1-MDS (USLH) = {1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15,17, 20, 22, 25, 27} 2-MDS (USLH) = {4, 8, 12, 17, 25} (double circled in graph) 3-MDS (USLH) = {8, 12, 17} 4-MDS (USLH) = {12}

  9. Comparing k-MDS vs. k-LOSS (k-BLK) load=60,k-MDSk-BLK k=3 17% (32%) 20% (20%) k=2 13% (48%) 19% (24%) k=17% (72%) 10% (60%) We can achieve almost 50% improvement with only 5 nodes

  10. NSFNET: nationwide backbone network 15 12 11 9 3 14 8 1 7 4 6 13 0 10 2 5 Weighted MDS (k-WMDS) 0-Connect (v) = Cardinality (Neighbor (v)) * Weight(v) 1-WMDS (NSF) = {1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14} 2-WMDS (NSF) = {1, 4, 9, 14} 3-WMDS (NSF) = {14}

  11. k-LOSS (k-BLK) vs. k-WMDS Under a load of 70, we simulated non-uniform traffic pattern between node pairs: Node Weight 0 6 1 12 2 7 3 12 4 5 5 8 6 1 7 11 8 7 9 2 10 7 11 15 12 3 13 15 14 9 15 2

  12. Placement of Limited OWC LIMITED has better performance than F-SEARCH forFlexible node-sharing and Static mapping optical switch designs.

  13. G-nodes placement: T-Grooming We can achieve with 2-WMDS members as G-nodes (r=16) the same throughput as if all nodes in the network had the grooming capability (r is the grooming ratio) G-nodes placement for traffic Grooming We can achieve with 2-WMDS members as G-nodes (r=16) the same throughput as if all nodes had the grooming capability (r is the grooming ratio)

  14. OBS switch design with FDLs/OWCs MAIN CONTROL Input Link 1 DMX 1 Converter Bank A 1 B 1 C 1 1 MUX Output Link 1 OWC W 1 C 2 C 1 A 1 . . . W W OWC O X C Input Link 2 DMX Converter Bank i MUX Output Link 2 1 A 2 B 2 C 2 OWC B 1 A 2 B 2 F.W . . . W OWC F.W + 1 F.W + 1 DMX: De-multiplexor MUX: Multiplexor OWC: any-to- Converter FDL: Fiber Delay Line F.W + 2 F.W + 2 FDL Bank 2 FDL 1 FDL

  15. λ1 . . . λW λ1 . . . λW 22 21 20 2(max_d) OWC OWC … … OWC OWC Fiber Delay Line design Variable delay: [0…MAXD], where MAXD = (20 + 21 +… +2(max_d)) x b

  16. Benefits of FDLs and OWCs FDLs vs. OWCs with JET signaling and W=16

  17. Efficient FDLs/OWCs placement • In a fully connected network (all nodes are connected), OWC has no effect on the blocking performance but FDLs do. • FDLs and OWCs capabilities must be used judiciously and placed in nodes that maximize the performance. • k-LOSS heuristic [JIM99, MSS02]: Via simulation, Place OWC in nodes experiencing the highest blocking rates.

  18. k-WMDS vs. k-LOSS (NSFNET)

  19. Conclusion • k-MDS provides an efficient sparse OWC placement. • k-WMDS models non-uniform traffic patterns. • k-MDS allows efficient placement of limited OWC. • It applies to G-nodes selection for traffic grooming. • k-WMDS efficiently place FDLs.

  20. Discussion and Questions

More Related