Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adversarial models in paging

Bridging the gap between theory and practice

  • Special Issue Paper
  • Published:
Computer Science - Research and Development

Abstract

The classical online paging problem mathematically abstracts memory management systems.

Early worst-case results for paging algorithms leave a significant gap to practical experience: Many “reasonable” algorithms, such as Least Recently Used, are empirically superior to “intuitively inferior” ones, like First-In First-Out or Flush When Full. But they have identical theoretical worst-case performance guarantees. Moreover, these guarantees do not adequately reflect empirical evidence.

To overcome this unsatisfying situation, many adversarial models intended to reflect the “typical” situation have been proposed. This article surveys the most prominent of them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Achlioptas D, Chrobak M, Noga J (2000) Competitive analysis for randomized paging algorithms. Theor Comput Sci 234:203–218

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Albers S, Favrholdt LM, Giel O (2002) On paging with locality of reference. In: Proceedings of the 34th annual ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC ’02), pp 258–267

    Google Scholar 

  3. Becchetti L (2004) Modeling locality: a probabilistic analysis of LRU and FWF. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual European symposium on algorithms (ESA ’04), pp 98–109

    Google Scholar 

  4. Belady LA (1966) A study of replacement algorithms for virtual storage computers. IBM Syst J 5:78–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Borodin A, El-Yaniv R (1998) Online computation and competitive analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Borodin A, Irani S, Raghavan P, Schieber B (1995) Competitive paging with locality of reference. J Comput Syst Sci 50(2):244–258

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Chrobak M, Noga J (1999) LRU is better than FIFO. Algorithmica 23:180–185

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Coffman EG Jr, Denning PJ (1973) Operating systems theory. Prentice-Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Denning PJ (1968) The working set model for program behavior. Commun ACM 11(5):323–333

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Denning PJ (1980) Working sets past and present. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 6:64–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fiat A, Mendel M (1997) Truly online paging with locality of reference. In: Proceedings of the 38th annual symposium on foundations of computer science (FOCS ’97), pp 326–335

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Fiat A, Rosen Z (1997) Experimental studies of access graph based heuristics: beating the LRU standard? In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (SODA ’97), pp 63–72

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fiat A, Karp RM, Luby M, McGeoch LA, Sleator DD, Young NE (1991) Competitive paging algorithms. J Algorithms 12(4):685–699

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Franaszek PA, Wagner TJ (1974) Some distribution-free aspects of paging performance. J ACM 21:31–39

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Irani S, Karlin AR, Phillips S (1996) Strongly competitive algorithms for paging with locality of reference. SIAM J Comput 25(3):477–497

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Karlin AR, Phillips SJ, Raghavan P (1992) Markov paging. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual symposium on foundations of computer science (FOCS ’92), pp 208–217

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Koutsoupias E, Papadimitriou CH (2000) Beyond competitive analysis. SIAM J Comput 30(1):300–317

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. McGeoch LA, Sleator DD (1991) A strongly competitive randomized algorithm. Algorithmica 6(1–6):816–825

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Panagiotou K, Souza A (2006) On adequate performance measures for paging. In: Proceedings of the 38th annual ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC ’06)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sites RL, Agarwal A (1988) Multiprocessor cache analysis using ATUM. In: 15th IEEE international symposium on computer architecture, pp 186–195

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sleator DD, Tarjan RE (1985) Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules. Commun ACM 28(2):202–208

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. SPEC—Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. www.spec.org

  23. Torng E (1998) A unified analysis of paging and caching. Algorithmica 20:175–200

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic bahaviour. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  25. Young N (1991) On-line caching as cache size varies. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (SODA ’91), pp 241–250

    Google Scholar 

  26. Young NE (2000) On-line paging against adversarially biased random inputs. J Algorithms 37(1):218–235

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Informatik, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Alexander Souza

Authors
  1. Alexander Souza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Souza.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Souza, A. Adversarial models in paging. Comput Sci Res Dev 27, 197–205 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00450-011-0152-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00450-011-0152-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation