DOCSLIB.ORG

Population Dynamics in Networks: from Queues to Pdes and Control, from P2P to Deferrable Power Loads

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Population Dynamics in Networks: from Queues to Pdes and Control, from P2P to Deferrable Power Loads Population dynamics in networks: from queues to PDEs and control, from P2P to deferrable power loads. Fernando Paganini Universidad ORT Uruguay Joint work with Andrés Ferragut Universidad ORT Uruguay IMA, Sept 2015. Outline 1. Networking research: between queues and fluids. 2. M/G- Processor Sharing queues, point process model and its PDE fluid counterpart. 3. Dynamics of peer-to-peer networks. 4. Dispatching deferrable power loads. Mathematics in networking - a historical view • In the beginning we had queueing theory… – Erlang, circa 1910, dimensioning telephone switches. • Statistical multiplexing inspired packet networks… – Kleinrock, 60s – 70s, Internet pioneer and queueing theorist. • But queueing theory reached its limits in networking: – Limited results in network case, dubious assumptions. • Turn to macroscopic fluid flow models: – Bertsekas/Gallager in late ’70s, Kelly et al in ’90s. – Cover elastic traffic, apply to general networks. – Early ’00s, Network Utility Maximization for multiple layers. • Still, Internet jobs remain statistically multiplexed. – Queuing theory has a comeback. – But fluid models appear also at this scale. Classical M/M/1 queues Poisson (λ ) arrivals exp(µ ) service times A( t ) Equivalently: exponential job size, X( t ) constant service rate. t exp(λ ) t λ Markov chain, state x-1 x is queue occupancy µ λ Stable (ergodic) if ρ = < 1. µ Invariant distribution is geometric: π(x )= ρx (1 − ρ ), x ≥ 0. Networks of Queues and Data networks • Queueing theory concepts influential in the early days of data networks: statistical multiplexing motivates “packet switching”. • But networks of M/M/1 queues are not easy to analyze. The steady-state distribution only known under narrow assumptions (Jackson networks). • Besides, packet networks do not match model assumptions: sending times not Poisson, packet length not exponential. Going from “molecular” to fluid models. Arrivals: rate λ pkt s/sec Real valued x( t ), following ODE λt x( t ) dx A( t ) =λ− µ , saturated to x ()0. t ≥ dt Departures: µ pkt s/sec t Relationship with Markov model for M/M/1 queue: Xm ( mt ) scaling limit x( t )= lim , where X m (0) = m . m→∞ m • Beyond the M/M/1 assumptions, the fluid “tank” is a natural macroscopic first-principles model. Extends to varying rates. • Allows for a simpler transition to the network case. • Leads to way to study feedback control of rates. Fluid view of network congestion control. ri ( t ) feedback • Congestion signals from scarce resources drive input rates. Network Utility Maximization model (Kel ly et al). Decentralized control is primal or dual solution of convex program max r ∑Uri( i ), subject to ∑ Rrclli i ≤ l ∀ . i i CONCAVE UTILITY LINK CAPACITY FUNCTION CONSTRAINTS The network at the scale of connections • The previous fluid models treat connections as permanent. • But connections (flows) arrive, are served and leave, there is also statistical multiplexing at the scale of flows. • Back to queueing theory! Distinguishing features: 1. Service discipline : all flows present are served simultaneously, sharing the network capacity. 2. Job sizes : exponential distribution is too limiting. Heavy tails observed for Internet files: many short transfers, far fewer long connections. Outline 1. Networking research: between queues and fluids. 2. M/G- Processor Sharing queues, point process model and its PDE fluid counterpart. 3. Dynamics of peer-to-peer networks. 4. Dispatching deferrable power loads. The M/G/1-Processor Sharing Queue. i Poisson(λ) arrivals of file transfer jobs i Random file size, general distrib ution. c P x G(σ) =(Si ze > σ ). G(σ ) σ i Processor Sharing: service capacity c (bp s) shared between c x jobs present. Rate per job: r = . Special case of NUM . x i Roberts and Massoulié ’98 proposed this model for TCP traffic, studied it in the case of exponential file sizes. λ λ Markov chain, stable if ρ = < c. µ x-1 x µc i Can we handle a more realistic model of file sizes? M/G/1-PS Queue. i Good news (see Kelly '78): PS queue is i nsen sitiv e: in steady state, the population of jobs has the sam e distribution ge om (ρ) as in exponenti al cas e . i But # of jobs is not the entire state: residual work matters. Compact representation of the state (Gromoll et al. '02, P.Robert '03): 0 σ1 σ2 σ3 σ x σ Point measure on R+ , each point is a job, position is residual work. Arrivals: a new point mass appears, following distribution G(σ ). Service= motion to the left, speed c x . Depart when reaching σ = 0. The model applies also to the M/ G / ∞ queue: here, each job present has a firm capaci ty for itself. ⇒ Points move at constant spee d . Fluid models for M/G-PS Queues • At the scale of jobs, stochastic models are very natural. • However, again they are hard to solve except for simple cases. • For a more general bandwidth sharing, (e.g. given by NUM), it is not easy to find steady-state distributions. • Turn again to fluid models: • Job quantities become real numbers • Differential equations replace Markov processes. • How to account for residual work? Fluid distribution on R+ Service= "advection", rate r(σ ) f( t ,σ ) Departures σ Arriving "mass", follows file-size distr ibution PDE using cumulative distributions For the point mass process, X( t ) Φ(t ,σ ) the complementary cumulative distribution is a decreasing, piecewise constant stochastic process Fluid version: deterministic σ1 σ 2 σ 3 σ n σ real-valued f unction F( t ,σ ) x( t ) representin g population o f jobs F( t ,σ ) with more residual wor k tha n σ. Dynamics: ARRIVALS PROPAGATION F( t+ dt ,σ ) = λG() σ dt+ F( t , σ + rdt ) rdt σ ∂Ft(,)σ ∂ Ft (,) σ r :rate per job. ⇒ =λG() σ + rFt (,,) σ ∂t ∂ σ [’P-Tang-Ferragut-Andrew , IEEE TAC '12 ]: first use of PDE to prove a stability conjecture for Internet bandwidth s hari ng with general f ile sizes. Outline 1. Networking research: between queues and fluids. 2. M/G- Processor Sharing queues, point process model and its PDE fluid counterpart. 3. Dynamics of peer-to-peer networks. 4. Dispatching deferrable power loads. BitTorrent-like peer-to-peer networks • Content = set of pieces. S S • Peers: – Seeders own entire content, willing to disseminate it. – Leechers downloading pieces, also contribute by uploading piece s they have. µi • Information on who owns L L which pieces, passed around L L to achieve efficient e xchang e. L L L • “Tit-for-tat” rules give incentives do cooperate . p2p capacity scales with demand We a ssume up load ban dwidth µi p er p eer is t he bottl eneck. Population dynamics of a swarm of peers PEERS (~hundreds) leechers seeders Arrive Trans Depart File PIECES sharing (~thousands) i Coarse model [Yang-DeVe ciana '04, Qiu-Srikant '04]: x leech, y seed. i De tailed mod el [Kesidis et al .07, Massou lié-Vojnov ic '08, Zhu-Hajek '12 ]: pop ulation state per sub set of pi eces. Huge dimens ion, limited results. i Our intermediate model: track profile o f population as a function of residual work σ. Leecher dynamics as an M/G-PS queue i Leechers arrive as Poiss on(λ ), seeking S S download of ra ndom size S, me an E[] S = 1. µ G(σ ) =P( S > σ ) µ σ L L Covers deterministic sizes: G (σ) =1[0,1) ( σ ) µ L L L L (peers want all the file, start with no content). L Populations: xt() leechers. Take for simplicity yty () ≡ 0 seeder s. Assumptions (empirically validated for peers with homo geneous µ): i Efficient use of tota l u pload capacity Rup =µ( x + y 0 ). µ(x+ y ) µ y i Processor shari ng : r =0 =µ + 0 , rate per leecher . x x Leecher dynamics is an M/G/" ∞ + 1"− Processor Sharing queue. From stochastic to fluid model i Exploiting insensitivity, we find the s teady-state distribution of peers ρx+ y 0 λ present in the stochastic queu e: π()x= C() ρ ,0 x ≥. ρ = . (x+ y 0 )! µ i Moreover, in steady state, residual jobs are independently drawn ∞ from ccdf G(σ )= G( s ) ds . [Pechinkin'83, Zachary '07]. For instance, ∫σ deterministic demands yield a u nifo rm download profile in e quilibrium. More information from fluid model: x( t ) F( t ,σ ) ∂Ft(,)σx+ y ∂ Ft (,) σ =λG () σ + µ 0 ∂t x ∂ σ r( F ,, t σ ) σ Note: in the case of exponentially distributed jobs, G(σ ) = e −σ the PDE admits a solution Ft(,)σ = xt ()e−σ , where xt () satisfi es the ODE x (t )=λ − µ ( x + y 0 ). This is the model in [Qiu-Sr ikant '04] . Transient analysis with PDE model Consider a transient sc enario ∂Ft(,)σx+ y ∂ Ft (,) σ = µ 0 with no leecher arrivals. ∂t x ∂ σ Fixed seeders y( t ) ≡ y 0. Initial population of lee chers x0, wi th partial c onten t F (0,σ )= Φ ( σ ) . Theorem: transient time to empty Compare with detailed packet 11 Φ (σ ) simulations (in ns2) of BitTorrent system is T= d σ. ∫0 µΦ( σ ) + y0 1x 1 Bound: T ≤0 ≤ . µx0+ y 0 µ Coarser ODE model: x (t )= −µ ( x + y0 ), x (0) = x 0 Predicts completion time 1 x T '= log 1 + 0 . Pessi mistic ! µ y0 Including arrivals: equilibrium and stability. ∂Ft(,)σx+ y ∂ Ft (,) σ xt()= Ft (,0); =λ + µ 0 ; ∂t x ∂ σ 0≡ F ( t ,1). For concreteness, work with d etermi nistic j ob sizes: G()1σ= [0,1) ( σ ) . Assume seeders alone cannot cope with demand: ρ > y0. PDE h as a unique equilibriu m: x* F * ()σ= ( ρ −Y )(1 − σ ) .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Queueing-Theoretic Solution Methods for Models of Parallel and Distributed Systems·
    1 Queueing-Theoretic Solution Methods for Models of Parallel and Distributed Systems· Onno Boxmat, Ger Koolet & Zhen Liui t CW/, Amsterdam, The Netherlands t INRIA-Sophia Antipolis, France This paper aims to give an overview of solution methods for the performance analysis of parallel and distributed systems. After a brief review of some important general solution methods, we discuss key models of parallel and distributed systems, and optimization issues, from the viewpoint of solution methodology. 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to present a survey of queueing theoretic methods for the quantitative modeling and analysis of parallel and distributed systems. We discuss a number of queueing models that can be viewed as key models for the performance analysis and optimization of parallel and distributed systems. Most of these models are very simple, but display an essential feature of dis­ tributed processing. In their simplest form they allow an exact analysis. We explore the possibilities and limitations of existing solution methods for these key models, with the purpose of obtaining insight into the potential of these solution methods for more realistic complex quantitative models. As far as references is concerned, we have restricted ourselves in the text mainly to key references that make a methodological contribution, and to sur­ veys that give the reader further access to the literature; we apologize for any inadvertent omissions. The reader is referred to Gelenbe's book [65] for a general introduction to the area of multiprocessor performance modeling and analysis. Stochastic Petri nets provide another formalism for modeling and perfor­ mance analysis of discrete event systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Product-Form in Queueing Networks
    Product-form in queueing networks VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT Product-form in queueing networks ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam, op gezag van de rector magnificus dr. C. Datema, hoogleraar aan de faculteit der letteren, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van de promotiecommissie van de faculteit der economische wetenschappen en econometrie op donderdag 21 mei 1992 te 15.30 uur in het hoofdgebouw van de universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105 door Richardus Johannes Boucherie geboren te Oost- en West-Souburg Thesis Publishers Amsterdam 1992 Promotoren: prof.dr. N.M. van Dijk prof.dr. H.C. Tijms Referenten: prof.dr. A. Hordijk prof.dr. P. Whittle Preface This monograph studies product-form distributions for queueing networks. The celebrated product-form distribution is a closed-form expression, that is an analytical formula, for the queue-length distribution at the stations of a queueing network. Based on this product-form distribution various so- lution techniques for queueing networks can be derived. For example, ag- gregation and decomposition results for product-form queueing networks yield Norton's theorem for queueing networks, and the arrival theorem implies the validity of mean value analysis for product-form queueing net- works. This monograph aims to characterize the class of queueing net- works that possess a product-form queue-length distribution. To this end, the transient behaviour of the queue-length distribution is discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, then in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 the equilibrium behaviour of the queue-length distribution is studied under the assumption that in each transition a single customer is allowed to route among the stations only, and finally, in Chapters 8, 9 and 10 the assumption that a single cus- tomer is allowed to route in a transition only is relaxed to allow customers to route in batches.
    [Show full text]
  • Product Form Queueing Networks S.Balsamo Dept
    Product Form Queueing Networks S.Balsamo Dept. of Math. And Computer Science University of Udine, Italy Abstract Queueing network models have been extensively applied to represent and analyze resource sharing systems such as communication and computer systems and they have proved to be a powerful and versatile tool for system performance evaluation and prediction. Product form queueing networks have a simple closed form expression of the stationary state distribution that allow to define efficient algorithms to evaluate average performance measures. We introduce product form queueing networks and some interesting properties including the arrival theorem, exact aggregation and insensitivity. Various special models of product form queueing networks allow to represent particular system features such as state-dependent routing, negative customers, batch arrivals and departures and finite capacity queues. 1 Introduction and Short History System performance evaluation is often based on the development and analysis of appropriate models. Queueing network models have been extensively applied to represent and analyze resource sharing systems, such as production, communication and computer systems. They have proved to be a powerful and versatile tool for system performance evaluation and prediction. A queueing network model is a collection of service centers representing the system resources that provide service to a collection of customers that represent the users. The customers' competition for the resource service corresponds to queueing into the service centers. The analysis of the queueing network models consists of evaluating a set of performance measures, such as resource utilization and throughput and customer response time. The popularity of queueing network models for system performance evaluation is due to a good balance between a relative high accuracy in the performance results and the efficiency in model analysis and evaluation.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Join-The-Shortest-Queue Routing for Web Server Farms∗
    Analysis of Join-the-Shortest-Queue Routing for Web Server Farms∗ Varun Gupta Mor Harchol-Balter Karl Sigman Ward Whitt hvarun,[email protected] hww2040,[email protected] Computer Science IEOR Department Carnegie Mellon University Columbia University Pittsburgh, PA New York, NY Abstract Join the Shortest Queue (JSQ) is a popular routing policy for server farms. However, until now all analysis of JSQ has been limited to First-Come-First-Serve (FCFS) server farms, whereas it is known that web server farms are better modeled as Processor Sharing (PS) server farms. We provide the first approximate analysis of JSQ in the PS server farm model for general job size distributions, obtaining the distribution of queue length at each queue. To do this, we approximate the queue length of each queue in the server farm by a one-dimensional Markov chain, in a novel fashion. We also discover some interesting insensitivity properties for PS server farms with JSQ routing, and discuss the near-optimality of JSQ. 1 Introduction 1.1 Motivation The server farm is a popular architecture for computing centers. A server farm consists of a front- end router/dispatcher which receives all the incoming requests (jobs), and dispatches each job to one of a collection of servers which do the actual processing. The dispatcher employs a routing policy (also called a “task assignment policy”, or TAP), which decides when and to which server an incoming request should be routed. Server farms afford low cost (many slow servers are cheaper than one fast server), high scalability (it is easy to add and remove servers) and high reliability (failure of individual servers does not bring the whole system down).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Processor Scheduling
    EE442 Operating Systems Ch. 2 Process Scheduling Chapter 2 Processor Scheduling 2.1 Processes A process is an executing program, including the current values of the program counter, registers, and variables.The subtle difference between a process and a program is that the program is a group of instructions whereas the process is the activity. In multiprogramming systems, processes are performed in a pseudoparallelism as if each process has its own processor. In fact, there is only one processor but it switches back and forth from process to process. Henceforth, by saying execution of a process, we mean the processor’s operations on the process like changing its variables, etc. and I/O work means the interaction of the process with the I/O operations like reading something or writing to somewhere. They may also be named as “processor (CPU) burst” and “I/O burst” respectively. According to these definitions, we classify programs as • Processor-bound program: A program having long processor bursts (execution instants). • I/O-bound program: A program having short processor bursts. Assume we have two processes A and B. Both execute for 1 second and do some I/O work for 1 second. This pattern is repeated 3 times for process A and 2 times for process B. If we have no multiprogramming, the processes are executed sequentially as below. A enters B enters Time ExecA1 I/OA1 ExecA2 I/OA2 ExecA3 I/OA3 ExecB1 I/OB1 ExecB2 I/OB2 A leaves B leaves So, the processor executes these two processes in a total time of 10 seconds.
    [Show full text]
  • Delay Analysis for Wireless Applications Using a Multiservice Multiqueue Processor Sharing Model
    Delay Analysis for Wireless Applications using a Multiservice Multiqueue Processor Sharing Model Yan Wang Doctor of Philosophy 2008 RMIT Delay Analysis for Wireless Applications using a Multiservice Multiqueue Processor Sharing Model A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Yan Wang M. Eng. School of Electrical and Computer Engineering Science, Engineering and Technology Portfolio RMIT University Melbourne, Victoria, Australia November 2008 Declaration I certify that except where due acknowledgement has been made, the work is that of the author alone; the work has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to qualify for any other academic award; the content of the thesis is the result of work which has been carried out since the official commence- ment date of the approved research program; and, any editorial work, paid or unpaid, carried out by a third party is acknowledged. Yan Wang Melbourne, November 1, 2009 iii Delay Analysis for Wireless Applications using a Multiservice Multiqueue Processor Sharing Model v °c Yan Wang 2008. All rights reserved. To my faithful Lord and my family Acknowledgement Beginning in early 2004, I started this long journey for my PhD, which was filled with challenges right up until the present time. It was a period with many ups and downs, uncountable levels of help and support from many peo- ple has accompanied me along the way. Therefore, I would like to express my deepest honor and appreciation to all of them. First, my deepest thanks go to Prof. Richard J. Harris and Prof. Moshe Zukerman for supervising me.
    [Show full text]
  • Stability of Queueing Networks
    Maury Bramson University of Minnesota Stability of Queueing Networks May 13, 2008 Springer Berlin Heidelberg NewYork Hong Kong London Milan Paris Tokyo 2 This manuscript will appear as Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1950, E´cole d’E´t´e de Probabilit´es de Saint-Flour XXXVI-2006. Copyright c 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg ! Contents 1 Introduction . 5 1.1 The M/M/1 Queue . 6 1.2 Basic Concepts of Queueing Networks . 7 1.3 Queueing Network Equations and Fluid Models . 15 1.4 Outline of Lectures . 18 2 The Classical Networks . 21 2.1 Main Results . 22 2.2 Stationarity and Reversibility . 27 2.3 Homogeneous Nodes of Kelly Type . 31 2.4 Symmetric Nodes . 36 2.5 Quasi-Reversibility . 43 3 Instability of Subcritical Queueing Networks . 57 3.1 Basic Examples of Unstable Networks . 58 3.2 Examples of Unstable FIFO Networks . 64 3.3 Other Examples of Unstable Networks . 75 4 Stability of Queueing Networks . 81 4.1 Some Markov Process Background . 84 4.2 Results for Bounded Sets . 96 4.3 Fluid Models and Fluid Limits . 104 4.4 Demonstration of Stability . 120 4.5 Appendix . 131 5 Applications and Some Further Theory . 143 5.1 Single Class Networks . 144 5.2 FBFS and LBFS Reentrant Lines . 148 5.3 FIFO Networks of Kelly Type . 151 5.4 Global Stability . 159 5.5 Relationship Between QN and FM Stability . 167 4 Contents Acknowledgments . 179 References . 181 Index . 187 1 Introduction Queueing networks constitute a large family of models in a variety of settings, involving “jobs” or “customers” that wait in queues until being served.
    [Show full text]