Abstract
We revisit from a fairness point of view the problem of online load balancing in the restricted assignment model and the 1-∞ model. We consider both a job-centric and a machine-centric view of fairness, as proposed by Goel et al. (In: Symposium on discrete algorithms, pp. 384–390, 2005). These notions are equivalent to the approximate notion of prefix competitiveness proposed by Kleinberg et al. (In: Proceedings of the 40th annual symposium on foundations of computer science, p. 568, 2001), as well as to the notion of approximate majorization, and they generalize the well studied notion of max-min fairness.
We resolve a question posed by Goel et al. (In: Symposium on discrete algorithms, pp. 384–390, 2005) proving that the greedy strategy is globally O(log m)-fair, where m denotes the number of machines. This result improves upon the analysis of Goel et al. (In: Symposium on discrete algorithms, pp. 384–390, 2005) who showed that the greedy strategy is globally O(log n)-fair, where n is the number of jobs. Typically, n≫m, and therefore our improvement is significant. Our proof matches the known lower bound for the problem with respect to the measure of global fairness.
The improved bound is obtained by analyzing, in a more accurate way, the more general restricted assignment model studied previously in Azar et al. (J. Algorithms 18:221–237, 1995). We provide an alternative bound which is not worse than the bounds of Azar et al. (J. Algorithms 18:221–237, 1995), and it is strictly better in many cases. The bound we prove is, in fact, much more general and it bounds the load on any prefix of most loaded machines. As a corollary from this more general bound we find that the greedy algorithm results in an assignment that is globally O(log m)-balanced. The last result generalizes the previous result of Goel et al. (In: Symposium on discrete algorithms, pp. 384–390, 2005) who proved that the greedy algorithm yields an assignment that is globally O(log m)-balanced for the 1-∞ model.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allalouf, M., & Shavitt, Y. (2004). Maximum flow routing with weighted max-min fairness. In First International workshop on QoS routing (WQoSR) (pp. 278–287).
Aslam, J. A., Rasala, A., Stein, C., & Young, N. (1999). Improved bicriteria existence theorems for scheduling. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (pp. 846–847).
Aspnes, J., Azar, Y., Fiat, A., Plotkin, S., & Waarts, O. (1997). On-line routing of virtual circuits with applications to load balancing and machine scheduling. Journal of the ACM, 44(3), 486–504.
Azar, Y. (1998). On-line load balancing. In Online algorithms: The state of the art (Vol. 8, pp. 178–195).
Azar, Y., Naor, J., & Rom, R. (1995). The competitiveness of on-line assignments. Journal of Algorithms, 18, 221–237.
Azar, Y., Epstein, L., Richter, Y., & Woeginger, G. (2004). All-norm approximation algorithms. Journal of Algorithms, 52(2), 120–133.
Bertsekas, D., & Gallager, R. (1987). Data networks. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Buchbinder, N., & Naor, J. (2006). A primal-dual approach to online routing and packing (Manuscript).
Goel, A., & Meyerson, A. (2006). Simultaneous optimization via approximate majorization for concave profits or convex costs. Algorithmica, 44(4), 301–323.
Goel, A., Meyerson, A., & Plotkin, S. (2001). Combining fairness with throughput: Online routing with multiple objectives. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 63(1), 62–79.
Goel, A., Meyerson, A., & Plotkin, S. A. (2005). Approximate majorization and fair online load balancing. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 1(2), 338–349.
Jaffe, J. M. (1981). Bottleneck flow control. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 29(7), 954–962.
Kleinberg, J., Rabani, Y. & Tardos, E., (2001). Fairness in routing and load balancing. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 63(1), 2–20.
Kumar, A., & Kleinberg, J. M. (2006). Fairness measures for resource allocation. SIAM Journal on Computing, 36(3), 657–680.
Lain, R. K., Chiu, D.-M., & Howe, W. (1984). A quantitative measure of fairness and discrimination for resource allocation in shared systems (DEC res. rep. TR-301).
Littlewood, J. E., Hardy, G. H., & P’olya, G. (1929). Some simple inequalities satisfied by convex functions. Messenger Math, 58, 145–152.
Marshal, A. W., & Olkin, I. (1979). Inequalities: Theory of majorization and its applications. In Mathematics in science and engineering (Vol. 143). New York: Academic Press.
Stein, C., & Wein, J. (1997). On the existence of schedules that are near-optimal for both makespan and total weighted completion time. Operations Research Letters, 21(3), 115–122.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
A preliminary version of this paper appeared in the Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, Cambridge, MA (2006), pp. 291–298.
Most of this work was done while visiting Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA.
This work was partly supported by ISF grant 1366/07.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buchbinder, N., Naor, J.(. Fair online load balancing. J Sched 16, 117–127 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-011-0226-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-011-0226-0