1 / 17

Tight Bounds for Delay-Sensitive Aggregation

Tight Bounds for Delay-Sensitive Aggregation. Yvonne Anne Oswald Stefan Schmid Roger Wattenhofer. LEA. D istributed C omputing G roup. Introduction. Distributed Computing Trade-off:. time complexity. vs. message complexity. Dijkstra Prize 2008. examples: gossiping data gathering

Download Presentation

Tight Bounds for Delay-Sensitive Aggregation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Tight Bounds for Delay-Sensitive Aggregation Yvonne Anne Oswald Stefan Schmid Roger Wattenhofer LEA DistributedComputingGroup

  2. Introduction Distributed Computing Trade-off: time complexity vs message complexity Dijkstra Prize 2008 examples: • gossiping • data gathering • organization theory Yvonne Anne Oswald @ PODC 2008

  3. Introduction Distributed Computing Trade-off: time complexity vs message complexity Particularly in sensor networks • limited energy (battery): transmission/reception expensive • goal: be up-to-date without much delay Yvonne Anne Oswald @ PODC 2008

  4. root Model • communication network: rooted spanning tree Yvonne Anne Oswald @ PODC 2008

  5. Root Model • communication network: rooted spanning tree • transmission cost c • nodes synchronized, time slotted • events occur at nodes (online, worst case) Goal: forward events to root , be fast and energy-efficient! Yvonne Anne Oswald @ PODC 2008

  6. Model • communication network: rooted spanning tree • transmission cost c • nodes synchronized, time slotted • events occur at nodes (online, worst case) Goal: forward events to root, be fast and energy-efficient! minimize (c¢ # transmissions + delay cost) e.g.,1 per event per time slot until arrival at root • messages can be merged Root => reduce # transmissions Yvonne Anne Oswald @ PODC 2008

  7. Oblivious Algorithm • DEFINITION: OBLIVIOUS ALGORITHM • decision (transmit/wait) of node v depends on • # events currently at node v • when events arrived at node v I’ve got a memory like a sieve and I don’t know where I am.. • decision of node v does NOT depend on • history (messages forwarded earlier) • v’s location in the aggregation network perfect for sensor nodes! Yvonne Anne Oswald @ PODC 2008

  8. Related Work and our Contributions • Link: • Dooly et al.[JACM01]: TCP, • offline OPT • online O(1) • Karlin et al.[STOC01] • online randomized e/(e-1) • Tree: • Khanna et al.[ICALP02] • model: edge e -> cost c(e) • distributed bounds • O(h log(e c(e)) • (h1/2) • Trees • O(min(c,h)) • oblivious (min(c,h)) • Chains • O(min(c,h1/2)) • oblivious (min(c, h1/2)) • WSN model • log(e c(e)) improvement • higher lower bound Yvonne Anne Oswald @ PODC 2008

  9. Algorithm AGG ([DGS01],[KNR01]) Balance delay cost and total communication cost AGG: node v forwards msg m as soon as delay(m,t) ¸ c ski rental on trees • Details • m : message at v, containing |m| events • delay(m,t) : delay associated with m at time t • no transmission: • delay(m,t+1) = delay (m,t) + |m| • transmission: • delay(m,t+1) = delay (m,t) + |m| - c Yvonne Anne Oswald @ PODC 2008

  10. V3 v2 V1 Example (4 nodes, 4 events, c=3) events v1 v2 t = 1 1 0 t = 2 1 2 delay at v1 v2 v3 t = 1 1 0 0 t = 2 3 2 0 t = 3 0 4 2 t = 4 0 0 7 t = 5 0 0 0 root |m|=4 delay=7 |m| =2 delay = 2 |m| =2 delay = 0 |m|=2 delay=1 |m|=2 delay=2 |m|=2 delay=4 |m|=1 delay = 1 |m| =2 delay = 3 cost = 17+9 Yvonne Anne Oswald @ PODC 2008

  11. Related Work and our Contributions • Link: • Dooly et al.[JACM01]: TCP, • offline OPT • online O(1) • Karlin et al.[STOC01] • online randomized e/(e-1) • Tree: • Khanna et al.[ICALP02] • model: edge e -> cost c(e) • distributed bounds • O(h log(e c(e)) • (h1/2) • WSN model • log(e c(e)) improvement • higher lower bound • Trees • O(min(c,h)) • oblivious (min(c,h)) • Chains • O(min(c,h1/2)) • oblivious (min(c, h1/2)) Yvonne Anne Oswald @ PODC 2008

  12. Lower Bound on Trees Thm: any oblivious deterministic online algorithm ALG has a competitive ratio of at least (min(c,h))on the tree. … root ALG: t=1 events at nodes v1..vn/2-1 t=w messages leave vi t=w+1 messages at nodes vn/2..vn-1 … cost 2(c+w)h2 Yvonne Anne Oswald @ PODC 2008

  13. Lower Bound on Trees Thm: any oblivious deterministic online algorithm ALG has a competitive ratio of at least (min(c,h))on the tree. … root ALG: cost 2(c+w)h2 OPT: cost 2O(ch+h2) => ratio (min(c,h)) Yvonne Anne Oswald @ PODC 2008

  14. assume : #msgOPT = x h1/2 #msgAGG, x 2(1) => costAGG2O(x h1/2 hc) find sequence keeping costopt minimal => msg size increases with t yet no merges for AGG => costOPT 2 (xhc) Upper Bound on Chains Thm: AGG has a competitive ratio of at most O(min(c,h1/2))on chains. … root time difference ensures no merges before i => bound for reduction cost • proof sketch • assume no messages merged: ratio O(h1/2) • include u merges at depth i: • cost reduction AGG (uci) • cost reduction OPT O(uci) • generalize for many merges at any depth: ratio O(h1/2) • combine with result from trees: ratio O(min(c,h1/2) Yvonne Anne Oswald @ PODC 2008

  15. Teaser on Value-Sensitive Aggregation What if urgency of delivery depends on value? root knows vr(t), value at leaf vl(t) cost := transmissions + t |vr(t) –vl(t)| • Results (2 nodes): • offline: dynamic programming O(#changes3) • online: competitive ratio 2 O(c/), • where  smallest difference between values Online AGG: forward at (t+1) if lastsent |vr(t) –vl(t)| ¸ c consider intervals between consecutive transmissions Yvonne Anne Oswald @ PODC 2008

  16. Summary • event aggregation • Tree: O(min(c,h)) • oblivious (min(c,h)) • Chain: O(min(c,h1/2)) • oblivious (min(c, h1/2)) • value-sensitive event aggregation • model • optimal algorithm for link O(# changes3) • online algorithm for link O(c/min.change) ski rental on trees Yvonne Anne Oswald @ PODC 2008

  17. The End! Thank you! Questions? Comments? Yvonne Anne Oswald @ PODC 2008

More Related