1 / 28

On the Gittins index in the M/G/1 queue

On the Gittins index in the M/G/1 queue. Samuli Aalto (TKK) in cooperation with Urtzi Ayesta (LAAS-CNRS) Rhonda Righter (UC Berkeley). Fundamental question. It is well known that … … in the M/G/1 queue … among the non-anticipating scheduling disciplines … the optimal discipline is

baber
Download Presentation

On the Gittins index in the M/G/1 queue

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. On the Gittins indexin the M/G/1 queue Samuli Aalto (TKK) in cooperation with Urtzi Ayesta (LAAS-CNRS) Rhonda Righter (UC Berkeley)

  2. Fundamental question • It is well known that … • … in the M/G/1 queue • … among the non-anticipating scheduling disciplines • … the optimal discipline is • FCFS if the service times are NBUE • FB if the service times are DHR • So, these conditions are sufficient for the optimality of FCFS and FB, respectively. But, … Are the conditions necessary?

  3. Outline • Service time distribution classes • Known optimality results • Gittins index • Gittins index and service time distribution classes • Gittins index policy • New optimality results

  4. Queueing model (1) • M/G/1 queue • Poisson arrivals with rate l • IID service times S with a general distribution • single server • Service time distribution: • Density function: • Hazard rate:

  5. Queueing model (2) • Remaining service time distribution: • Mean remaining service time: • H-function:

  6. NBUE NWUE DMRL IMRL IHR DHR Service time distribution classes (1) • Service times are • IHR [DHR] if h(x) is increasing [decreasing] • DMRL [IMRL] if H(x) is increasing [decreasing] • NBUE [NWUE] if H(0) £[³]H(x) • It is known that • IHR Ì DMRL Ì NBUE and DHR Ì IMRL Ì NWUE

  7. NBUE NWUE DMRL IMRL IHR DHR Service time distribution classes (2) • IHR = Increasing Hazard Rate • DMRL = Decreasing Mean Residual Lifetime • NBUE = New Better than Used in Expectation • DHR = Decreasing Hazard Rate • IMRL = Increasing Mean Residual Lifetime • NWUE = New Worse than Used in Expectation

  8. Outline • Service time distribution classes • Known optimality results • Gittins index • Gittins index and service time distribution classes • Gittins index policy • New optimality results

  9. Scheduling/queueing/service disciplines • Anticipating: • SRPT = Shortest-Remaining-Processing-Time • strict priority according to the remaining service • Non-anticipating: • FCFS = First-Come-First-Served • service in the arrival order • FB = Foreground-Background • strict priority according to the attained service • a.k.a. LAS = Least-Attained-Service

  10. NWUE NBUE DMRL IMRL IHR DHR Known optimality results • Among all scheduling disciplines, • SRPT is optimal(minimizing the queue length pathwise); Schrage (1968) • Among the non-anticipatingscheduling disciplines, • FCFS isoptimal for NBUE service times (minimizing the mean queue length); Righter, Shanthikumar and Yamazaki (1990) • FB isoptimal for DHR service times (minimizing the queue length stochastically); Righter and Shanthikumar (1989)

  11. Our objective • We will show that … • … among the non-anticipatingscheduling disciplines • FCFS isoptimal only for NBUE service times • FB isoptimal only for DHR service times • In other words, we will show that … • For that, we need Yes, the conditions are necessary. The Gittins Index

  12. Outline • Service time distribution classes • Known optimality results • Gittins index • Gittins index and service time distribution classes • Gittins index policy • New optimality results

  13. Gittins index • Efficiency function (J-function): • Gittins index for a customer with attained service a: • Optimal (individual) service quota:

  14. Example Pareto service time distribution starting from 1 k= 1 D*(0)= 3.732

  15. Basic properties (1) • Partial derivative w.r.t. to D: • Lemma: • If D*(a) <¥ and h(x) is continuous, then

  16. Basic properties (2) • Lemma: • Corollary: • Lemma: • Corollary:

  17. Outline • Service time distribution classes • Known optimality results • Gittins index • Gittins index and service time distribution classes • Gittins index policy • New optimality results

  18. DHR [IHR] service times • Lemma: • Proof: • Corollary: • If the service times are DHR [IHR], then J(a,D) is decreasing [increasing] w.r.t. to D for all a, D. • Corollary: • If the service times are DHR [IHR], then G(a)=h(a) [H(a)] for all a.

  19. DHR service times • Proposition: • (i) The service times are DHR if and only if (ii) G(a) is decreasing for all a. • In this case, G(a)=h(a) for all a. • Proof: • (i) Þ (ii): Corollary in slide 18 • (ii) Þ (i): Corollary in slide 16

  20. IMRL [DMRL] and NWUE [NBUE] service times • Lemma: • Proof: • Corollaries: • The service times are IMRL [DMRL] if and only if J(a,¥)£ [³] J(a,D) for all a, D. • The service times are NWUE [NBUE] if and only if J(0,¥)£ [³] J(0,D) for all D.

  21. DMRL and NBUE service times • Proposition: • (i) The service times are DMRL if and only if (ii) G(a) is increasing for all a if and only if (iii) G(a)=H(a) for all a. • (i) The service times are NBUE if and only if (ii) G(a)³G(0) for all a if and only if (iii) G(0)=H(0). • Proof: • (i) Û (iii) Þ (ii): Corollary in slide 20 • (ii) Þ (i): Corollary/Lemma in slide 16

  22. Outline • Service time distribution classes • Known optimality results • Gittins index • Gittins index and service time distribution classes • Gittins index policy • New optimality results

  23. Gittins index policy • Definition [Gittins (1989)]: • Gittins index policy gives service to the job i with the highest Gittins index Gi(ai). • Theorem [Gittins (1989), Yashkov (1992)]: • Among the non-anticipating disciplines,Gittins index policy minimizes the mean queue length in the M/G/1 queue (with possibly multiple job classes) • Observations: • FB is a Gittins index policy if and only if G(a) is decreasing for all a. • FCFS (or any other non-preemptive policy) is a Gittins index policy if and only if G(a)³G(0) for all a.

  24. Outline • Service time distribution classes • Known optimality results • Gittins index • Gittins index and service time distribution classes • Gittins index policy • New optimality results

  25. Single job class (1) • Theorem: • FB minimizes stochastically the queue length if and only if the service times are DHR. • Proof: • Theorem in slide 23 and Proposition in slide 19 together with Righter, Shanthikumar and Yamazaki (1990). • Theorem: • FCFS minimizes the mean queue length if and only if the service times are NBUE. • Proof: • Theorem in slide 23 and Proposition in slide 21.

  26. Single job class (2) • Additional assumption: • arriving jobs have already attained a random amount of service elsewhere • Theorem: • FB = LAS minimizes the mean queue length if and only if the service times are DHR. • Definition: • MAS (Most-Attained-Service) gives service to the job i with the highest hazard rate hi(ai). • Theorem: • MAS minimizes the mean queue length if and only if the service times are DMRL.

  27. Multiple job classes • Additional assumption: • arriving jobs have already attained a random amount of service elsewhere • Definition: • HHR (Highest-Hazard-Rate) gives service to the job i with the highest hazard rate hi(ai). • Theorem: • If all service time distributions are DHR, then HHR minimizes the mean queue length • Theorem: • If all service time distributions are DMRL, then SERPT minimizes the mean queue length

  28. THE END

More Related