Scheduling Packets with Values and Deadlines in Size-bounded Buffers

Motivated by providing quality-of-service differentiated services in the Internet, we consider buffer management algorithms for network switches. We study a multi-buffer model. A network switch consists of multiple size-bounded buffers such that at any time, the number of packets residing in each individual buffer cannot exceed its capacity. Packets arrive at the network switch over time; they have values, deadlines, and designated buffers. In each time step, at most one pending packet is allowed to be sent and this packet can be from any buffer. The objective is to maximize the total value of the packets sent by their respective deadlines. A 9.82-competitive online algorithm has been provided for this model (Azar and Levy. SWAT 2006), but no offline algorithms have been known yet. In this paper, We study the offline setting of the multi-buffer model. Our contributions include a few optimal offline algorithms for some variants of the model. Each variant has its unique and interesting algorithmic feature. These offline algorithms help us understand the model better in designing online algorithms.Comment: 7 page

Architecture, design, and modeling of the OPSnet asynchronous optical packet switching node

An all-optical packet-switched network supporting multiple services represents a long-term goal for network operators and service providers alike. The EPSRC-funded OPSnet project partnership addresses this issue from device through to network architecture perspectives with the key objective of the design, development, and demonstration of a fully operational asynchronous optical packet switch (OPS) suitable for 100 Gb/s dense-wavelength-division multiplexing (DWDM) operation. The OPS is built around a novel buffer and control architecture that has been shown to be highly flexible and to offer the promise of fair and consistent packet delivery at high load conditions with full support for quality of service (QoS) based on differentiated services over generalized multiprotocol label switching

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

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