skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Degree of Queue Imbalance: Overcoming the Limitation of Heavy-traffic Delay Optimality in Load Balancing Systems

Published:03 April 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Heavy-traffic delay optimality is considered to be an important metric in evaluating the delay performance of load balancing schemes. In this paper, we argue that heavy-traffic delay optimality is a coarse metric that does not necessarily imply good delay performance. Specifically, we show that any load balancing scheme is heavy-traffic delay optimal as long as it satisfies a fairly weak condition. This condition only requires that in the long-term the dispatcher favors, even slightly, shorter queues over longer queues. Hence, although a load balancing scheme could be heavy-traffic delay optimal, the empirical delay performance of heavy-traffic delay optimal schemes can range from very good (that of join-shortest-queue) to very bad (arbitrarily close to the performance of random routing). To overcome this limitation, we introduce a new metric called degree of queue imbalance, which measures the queue length difference between all the servers in steady-state. Given a heavy-traffic delay optimal load balancing scheme, we can characterize the resultant degree of queue imbalance. This, in turn, allows us to explicitly differentiate between good and poor load balancing schemes. Thus, this paper suggests that when designing good load balancing schemes, they should not only be heavy-traffic delay optimal, but also have a low degree of queue imbalance.

References

  1. Dimitris Bertsimas, David Gamarnik, and John N Tsitsiklis. 2001. Performance of multiclass Markovian queueing networks via piecewise linear Lyapunov functions. Annals of Applied Probability (2001), 1384--1428.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Maury Bramson. 1998. State space collapse with application to heavy traffic limits for multiclass queueing networks. Queueing Systems, Vol. 30, 1--2 (1998), 89--140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Mark E Crovella, Mor Harchol-Balter, and Cristina D Murta. 1998. Task assignment in a distributed system (extended abstract): improving performance by unbalancing load. In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. Vol. 26. ACM, 268--269. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Atilla Eryilmaz and R Srikant. 2012. Asymptotically tight steady-state queue length bounds implied by drift conditions. Queueing Systems, Vol. 72, 3--4 (2012), 311--359. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. G Foschini and JACK Salz. 1978. A basic dynamic routing problem and diffusion. IEEE Transactions on Communications Vol. 26, 3 (1978), 320--327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Ian Foster, Yong Zhao, Ioan Raicu, and Shiyong Lu. 2008. Cloud computing and grid computing 360-degree compared 2008 Grid Computing Environments Workshop. Ieee, 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. David Gamarnik, John N Tsitsiklis, and Martin Zubeldia. 2016. Delay, Memory, and Messaging Tradeoffs in Distributed Service Systems Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGMETRICS International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Science. ACM, 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Lars George. 2011. HBase: the definitive guide. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.".Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Varun Gupta, Mor Harchol Balter, Karl Sigman, and Ward Whitt. 2007. Analysis of join-the-shortest-queue routing for web server farms. Performance Evaluation Vol. 64, 9 (2007), 1062--1081. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. FP Kelly and CN Laws. 1993. Dynamic routing in open queueing networks: Brownian models, cut constraints and resource pooling. Queueing systems, Vol. 13, 1 (1993), 47--86.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Yi Lu, Qiaomin Xie, Gabriel Kliot, Alan Geller, James R Larus, and Albert Greenberg. 2011. Join-Idle-Queue: A novel load balancing algorithm for dynamically scalable web services. Performance Evaluation Vol. 68, 11 (2011), 1056--1071. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Siva Theja Maguluri, R Srikant, et almbox.. 2016. Heavy traffic queue length behavior in a switch under the MaxWeight algorithm. Stochastic Systems, Vol. 6, 1 (2016), 211--250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Siva Theja Maguluri, R Srikant, and Lei Ying. 2014. Heavy traffic optimal resource allocation algorithms for cloud computing clusters. Performance Evaluation Vol. 81 (2014), 20--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Michael Mitzenmacher. 2001. The power of two choices in randomized load balancing. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, Vol. 12, 10 (2001), 1094--1104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Michael Mitzenmacher. 2016. Analyzing distributed Join-Idle-Queue: A fluid limit approach Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), 2016 54th Annual Allerton Conference on. IEEE, 312--318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Debankur Mukherjee, Sem C Borst, Johan SH van Leeuwaarden, and Philip A Whiting. 2016. Universality of Power-of-$ d $ Load Balancing in Many-Server Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.00723 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Martin I Reiman. 1984. Some diffusion approximations with state space collapse. Modelling and performance evaluation methodology. Springer, 207--240.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Jori Selen, Ivo Adan, Stella Kapodistria, and Johan van Leeuwaarden. 2016. Steady-state analysis of shortest expected delay routing. Queueing Systems, Vol. 84, 3--4 (2016), 309--354. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Alexander L Stolyar. 2015. Pull-based load distribution in large-scale heterogeneous service systems. Queueing Systems, Vol. 80, 4 (2015), 341--361. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Alexander L Stolyar et almbox.. 2004. Maxweight scheduling in a generalized switch: State space collapse and workload minimization in heavy traffic. The Annals of Applied Probability Vol. 14, 1 (2004), 1--53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Weina Wang, Kai Zhu, Lei Ying, Jian Tan, and Li Zhang. 2016. MapTask scheduling in MapReduce with data locality: Throughput and heavy-traffic optimality. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking Vol. 24, 1 (2016), 190--203. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Ruth J Williams. 1998. Diffusion approximations for open multiclass queueing networks: sufficient conditions involving state space collapse. Queueing systems, Vol. 30, 1 (1998), 27--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Qiaomin Xie and Yi Lu. 2015. Priority algorithm for near-data scheduling: Throughput and heavy-traffic optimality Computer Communications (INFOCOM), 2015 IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 963--972.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Qiaomin Xie, Ali Yekkehkhany, and Yi Lu. 2016. Scheduling with multi-level data locality: Throughput and heavy-traffic optimality Computer Communications, IEEE INFOCOM 2016-The 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Degree of Queue Imbalance: Overcoming the Limitation of Heavy-traffic Delay Optimality in Load Balancing Systems

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems
          Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems  Volume 2, Issue 1
          March 2018
          603 pages
          EISSN:2476-1249
          DOI:10.1145/3203302
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 3 April 2018
          Published in pomacs Volume 2, Issue 1

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader