Competitive queueing policies for QoS switches
SODA '03 Proceedings of the fourteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms
An optimal online algorithm for packet scheduling with agreeable deadlines
SODA '05 Proceedings of the sixteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms
Lower and upper bounds on FIFO buffer management in QoS switches
ESA'06 Proceedings of the 14th conference on Annual European Symposium - Volume 14
Considering suppressed packets improves buffer management in QoS switches
SODA '07 Proceedings of the eighteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms
Improved online algorithms for buffer management in QoS switches
ACM Transactions on Algorithms (TALG)
Competitive queue management for latency sensitive packets
Proceedings of the nineteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
The delivery of latency sensitive packets is a crucial issue in real time applications of communication networks. Such packets often have a firm deadline and a packet becomes useless if it arrives after its deadline. The deadline, however, applies only to the packet's journey through the entire network; individual routers along the packet's route face a more flexible deadline. We consider policies for admitting latency sensitive packets at a router. Each packet is tagged with a value and a packet waiting at a router loses value over time as its probability of arriving at its destination decreases. The router is modeled as a nonpreemptive queue, and its objective is to maximize the total value of the forwarded packets. When a router receives a packet, it must either accept it (and possibly delay future packets), or reject it immediately. The best policy depends on the set of values that a packet can take. We consider three natural settings: unrestricted model, real-valued model, where any value above 1 is allowed, and an integral-valued model. We obtain the following results. For the unrestricted model, we prove that there is no constant competitive ratio algorithm. The real valued model has a randomized 4-competitive algorithm and a matching lower bound. We also give for the last model a deterministic lower bound of φ3 ≈ 4.236, almost matching the previously known 4.24-competitive algorithm. For the integralvalued model, we show a deterministic 4-competitive algorithm, and prove that this is tight even for randomized algorithms.