An Optimal Lower Bound for Buffer Management in Multi-Queue Switches

In the online packet buffering problem (also known as the unweighted FIFO variant of buffer management), we focus on a single network packet switching device with several input ports and one output port. This device forwards unit-size, unit-value packets from input ports to the output port. Buffers attached to input ports may accumulate incoming packets for later transmission; if they cannot accommodate all incoming packets, their excess is lost. A packet buffering algorithm has to choose from which buffers to transmit packets in order to minimize the number of lost packets and thus maximize the throughput. We present a tight lower bound of e/(e-1) ~ 1.582 on the competitive ratio of the throughput maximization, which holds even for fractional or randomized algorithms. This improves the previously best known lower bound of 1.4659 and matches the performance of the algorithm Random Schedule. Our result contradicts the claimed performance of the algorithm Random Permutation; we point out a flaw in its original analysis

The Longest Queue Drop Policy for Shared-Memory Switches is 1.5-competitive

We consider the Longest Queue Drop memory management policy in shared-memory switches consisting of $N$ output ports. The shared memory of size $M\geq N$ may have an arbitrary number of input ports. Each packet may be admitted by any incoming port, but must be destined to a specific output port and each output port may be used by only one queue. The Longest Queue Drop policy is a natural online strategy used in directing the packet flow in buffering problems. According to this policy and assuming unit packet values and cost of transmission, every incoming packet is accepted, whereas if the shared memory becomes full, one or more packets belonging to the longest queue are preempted, in order to make space for the newly arrived packets. It was proved in 2001 [Hahne et al., SPAA '01] that the Longest Queue Drop policy is 2-competitive and at least $\sqrt{2}$-competitive. It remained an open question whether a (2-\epsilon) upper bound for the competitive ratio of this policy could be shown, for any positive constant \epsilon. We show that the Longest Queue Drop online policy is 1.5-competitive

D-SPACE4Cloud: A Design Tool for Big Data Applications

The last years have seen a steep rise in data generation worldwide, with the development and widespread adoption of several software projects targeting the Big Data paradigm. Many companies currently engage in Big Data analytics as part of their core business activities, nonetheless there are no tools and techniques to support the design of the underlying hardware configuration backing such systems. In particular, the focus in this report is set on Cloud deployed clusters, which represent a cost-effective alternative to on premises installations. We propose a novel tool implementing a battery of optimization and prediction techniques integrated so as to efficiently assess several alternative resource configurations, in order to determine the minimum cost cluster deployment satisfying QoS constraints. Further, the experimental campaign conducted on real systems shows the validity and relevance of the proposed method

Size-Based Flow Scheduling in a CICQ Switch

In the context of flow-aware networking, size-based (SB) scheduling policies have been shown to improve response times of small flows, without degrading the performance of large flows. But these differentiating policies are designed for Output-queued (OQ) switch architecture, which is known to have scalability issues. On the other hand, the buffered-crossbar (BX) switch architecture is currently being pursued as a potential next-generation scalable switch architecture. This work looks into the problem of performing SB scheduling in BX switches. In particular, the design goals, with respect to each output port, are (i) to transmit high-priority packet(s) as long as there is at least one present, and (ii) to respect the FIFO order among high-priority packets. In this direction, we propose a CICQ switches using a single PIFO queue at each crosspoint to schedule packets according to the priority assigned. pCICQ-1 switch uses a simple design to guarantee that packet-priorities are respected once they are in the crosspoint queues. But it does not maintain the FIFO order of high-priority packets, besides letting a bounded number low-priority packets to depart through an output, when there are one or more high-priority packets for the same output. To solve this, we propose an enhancement in pCICQ-2 switch, that uses a sequence controller to respect packet-priorities as well as arrival order for high-priority packets

Breaking the Barrier Of 2 for the Competitiveness of Longest Queue Drop

We consider the problem of managing the buffer of a shared-memory switch that transmits packets of unit value. A shared-memory switch consists of an input port, a number of output ports, and a buffer with a specific capacity. In each time step, an arbitrary number of packets arrive at the input port, each packet designated for one output port. Each packet is added to the queue of the respective output port. If the total number of packets exceeds the capacity of the buffer, some packets have to be irrevocably rejected. At the end of each time step, each output port transmits a packet in its queue and the goal is to maximize the number of transmitted packets. The Longest Queue Drop (LQD) online algorithm accepts any arriving packet to the buffer. However, if this results in the buffer exceeding its memory capacity, then LQD drops a packet from the back of whichever queue is currently the longest, breaking ties arbitrarily. The LQD algorithm was first introduced in 1991, and is known to be 2-competitive since 2001. Although LQD remains the best known online algorithm for the problem and is of practical interest, determining its true competitiveness is a long-standing open problem. We show that LQD is 1.707-competitive, establishing the first (2-?) upper bound for the competitive ratio of LQD, for a constant ? > 0