Document

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

## File

LIPIcs.ICALP.2021.17.pdf
• Filesize: 0.77 MB
• 20 pages

## Cite As

Antonios Antoniadis, Matthias Englert, Nicolaos Matsakis, and Pavel Veselý. Breaking the Barrier Of 2 for the Competitiveness of Longest Queue Drop. In 48th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2021). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 198, pp. 17:1-17:20, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2021)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2021.17

## Abstract

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-ε) upper bound for the competitive ratio of LQD, for a constant ε > 0.

## Subject Classification

##### ACM Subject Classification
• Theory of computation → Online algorithms
##### Keywords
• buffer management
• online scheduling
• online algorithms
• longest queue drop

## Metrics

• Access Statistics
• Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
0

## References

1. W. Aiello, A. Kesselman, and Y. Mansour. Competitive buffer management for shared-memory switches. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 5(1):3:1-3:16, 2008.
2. K. Al-Bawani, M. Englert, and M. Westermann. Online packet scheduling for CIOQ and buffered crossbar switches. Algorithmica, 80(12):3861-3888, 2018.
3. S. Albers and M. Schmidt. On the performance of greedy algorithms in packet buffering. SIAM Journal on Computing, 35(2):278-304, 2005.
4. N. Andelman, Y. Mansour, and A. Zhu. Competitive queueing policies for QoS switches. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 761-770, 2003.
5. Y. Azar and A. Litichevskey. Maximizing throughput in multi-queue switches. Algorithmica, 45(1):69-90, 2006.
6. Y. Azar and Y. Richter. Management of multi-queue switches in QoS networks. Algorithmica, 43(1-2):81-96, 2005.
7. N. Bansal, L. Fleischer, T. Kimbrel, M. Mahdian, B. Schieber, and M. Sviridenko. Further improvements in competitive guarantees for QoS buffering. In Proceedings of the 31st International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP), pages 196-207, 2004.
8. M. Bienkowski, M. Chrobak, and Ł Jeż. Randomized competitive algorithms for online buffer management in the adaptive adversary model. Theoretical Computer Science, 412(39):5121-5131, 2011.
9. I. Bochkov, A. Davydow, N. Gaevoy, and S. I. Nikolenko. New competitiveness bounds for the shared memory switch. CoRR, abs/1907.04399, 2019. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04399.
10. J. L. Bruno, B. Özden, A. Silberschatz, and H. Saran. Early fair drop: a new buffer management policy. Multimedia Computing and Networking, 3654:148-161, 1998.
11. S. Chamberland and B. Sansò. Overall design of reliable ip networks with performance guarantees. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications: Global Convergence Through Communications (ICC), pages 1145-1151, 2000.
12. H. J. Chao and X. Guo. Quality of Service Control in High-Speed Networks. Wiley-IEEE Press, 2001.
13. H. J. Chao and B. Liu. High Performance Switches and Routers. Wiley-IEEE Press, 2007.
14. F. Y. L. Chin, M. Chrobak, S. P. Y. Fung, W. Jawor, J. Sgall, and T. Tichý. Online competitive algorithms for maximizing weighted throughput of unit jobs. Journal of Discrete Algorithms, 4(2):255-276, 2006.
15. F. Y. L. Chin and S. P. Y. Fung. Online scheduling with partial job values: Does timesharing or randomization help? Algorithmica, 37(3):149-164, 2003.
16. M. Chrobak, W Jawor, J. Sgall, and T. Tichý. Improved online algorithms for buffer management in QoS switches. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 3(4):50, 2007.
17. M. Englert and M. Westermann. Lower and upper bounds on FIFO buffer management in QoS switches. Algorithmica, 53(4):523-548, 2009.
18. M. Englert and M. Westermann. Considering suppressed packets improves buffer management in quality of service switches. SIAM Journal on Computing, 41(5):1166-1192, 2012.
19. P. Eugster, K. Kogan, S. Nikolenko, and A. Sirotkin. Shared memory buffer management for heterogeneous packet processing. In Proceedings of the 34th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), pages 471-480, 2014.
20. M. H. Goldwasser. A survey of buffer management policies for packet switches. SIGACT News, 41(1):100-128, 2010.
21. E. L. Hahne, A. Kesselman, and Y. Mansour. Competitive buffer management for shared-memory switches. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA), pages 53-58, 2001.
22. B. Hajek. On the competitiveness of on-line scheduling of unit-length packets with hard deadlines in slotted time. In Proceedings of the 35th Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, pages 434-438, 2001.
23. Ł. Jeż. A universal randomized packet scheduling algorithm. Algorithmica, 67(4):498-515, 2013.
24. A. Kesselman, Z. Lotker, Y. Mansour, B. Patt-Shamir, B. Schieber, and M. Sviridenko. Buffer overflow management in QoS switches. SIAM Journal on Computing, 33(3):563-583, 2004.
25. A. Kesselman and Y. Mansour. Harmonic buffer management policy for shared memory switches. Theoretical Computer Science, 324(2-3):161-182, 2004.
26. A. Kesselman, Y. Mansour, and R. van Stee. Improved competitive guarantees for QoS buffering. Algorithmica, 43(1-2):63-80, 2005.
27. A. Kesselman and A. Rosén. Scheduling policies for CIOQ switches. Journal of Algorithms, 60(1):60-83, 2006.
28. K. M. Kobayashi, S. Miyazaki, and Y. Okabe. A tight bound on online buffer management for two-port shared-memory switches. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA), pages 358-364, 2007.
29. F. Li, J. Sethuraman, and C. Stein. Better online buffer management. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 199-208, 2007.
30. N. Matsakis. Approximation Algorithms for Packing and Buffering problems. PhD thesis, University of Warwick, UK, 2015.
31. M. Nabeshima and K. Yata. Performance improvement of active queue management with per-flow scheduling. IEE Proceedings-Communications, 152(6):797-803, 2005.
32. S. I. Nikolenko and K. Kogan. Single and multiple buffer processing. In Encyclopedia of Algorithms, pages 1988-1994. Springer, 2016.
33. B. Suter, T. V. Lakshman, D. Stiliadis, and A. K. Choudhury. Design considerations for supporting TCP with per-flow queueing. In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), pages 299-306, 1998.
34. P. Veselý, M. Chrobak, Ł. Jeż, and J. Sgall. A ϕ-competitive algorithm for scheduling packets with deadlines. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 123-142, 2019.
35. S. X. Wei, E. J. Coyle, and M. T. Hsiao. An optimal buffer management policy for high-performance packet switching. In Proceedings of the Global Communication Conference (GLOBECOM), pages 924-928, 1991.
36. A. Zhu. Analysis of queueing policies in QoS switches. Journal of Algorithms, 53(2):137-168, 2004.