200 likes | 424 Views
Bandwidth-Guaranteed Fair Scheduling with Effective Excess Bandwidth Allocation for Wireless Networks. Yaxin Cao, Ka-Cheong Leung, Member, IEEE, and Victor O. K. Li, Fellow, IEEE IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, Vol. 7, No. 6, JUNE 2008 å ±å‘Šè€…ï¼šæŽå®—ç©Ž. Outline. Introduction
E N D
Bandwidth-Guaranteed Fair Scheduling with Effective Excess Bandwidth Allocation for Wireless Networks Yaxin Cao, Ka-Cheong Leung, Member, IEEE, and Victor O. K. Li, Fellow, IEEE IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, Vol. 7, No. 6, JUNE 2008 報告者:李宗穎
Outline • Introduction • System Model • Proposed Algorithm : BGFS-EBA • Performance Evaluation • Conclusion
Problem • Packet transmission in wireline networks enjoy very low error rate, but wireless channels are more error-prone and suffer from interference, fading, and shadowing.
Related Work • channel-condition independent packet fair queueing (CIFQ) • error-free fair queueing reference system • associating compensation rate and penalty rate with a flow’s allocated service rate and guaranteeing any flow sent on an error-free link with the minimal service rate
System Model • uplink and downlink flows are scheduled independently • centralized scheduling • the quality of an error-prone link between two states, good or bad • In bad states, the packet can be split into m low-rate packets
The scope of paper work • Provide long-term fairness and goodput guarantees for flows with error-free links or occasional link errors • Achieve high wireless channel utilization • Minimize packet loss • Provide delay bound for flows with error-free links or sporadic link errors • Achieve low power consumption in mobile hosts • Achieve medium algorithm complexity
Algorithm Description • Flow state • leading, lagging, or satisfied • CIF-Q • error-free start-time fair queueing (SFQ) system, which is dependent on the traffic load • BGFS-EBA • load-independent function ri t, for all i = 1, 2, . . .,N
Scheduling process phase 1 The scheduler always selects a virtual packet with the smallest deadline Deadline calculation of a virtual flow
Scheduling process phase 2 • L and riare the packet size and the target rate for flow i • the scheduler only needs to maintain one deadline for each flow i, di, by which the HOL virtual packet should be served
Normalized goodput gap • To determine how much Flow i is leading and lagging its target rate • normalized goodput gap, which is defined as gi(t) : data of flow i transmitted successfully up to time t ri : the flow i goodput Gi(t) : represents how much a flow is leading and lagging compared to its target goodput
Scheduling operation for BGFS-EBA (1/2) • The packet will give up its service opportunity to some other flow if all of the following conditions are satisfied : • Flow i is leading, i.e. Gi > 0 • gi+ L ≥ ri・ (di − τi), where diis the current deadline (after an update in the first phase) of a virtual packet for flow i, and τiis the start time of the current backlog period for flow i • There exists at least one flow lagging and goodstate
Scheduling operation for BGFS-EBA (2/2) • virtual flow is picked but its real packet queue is empty, paper will search other non-empty flow with following conditions : • Any flow with a link in the good state and its normalized goodput gap below its goodput threshold • Any flow with a link in the good state and a negative normalized goodput gap • Any flow with its normalized goodput gap below its goodput threshold • Any flow with a link in the good state • Any backlogged flow
Multi-rate Time-Varying Channel • BGFS-EBA can be easily extended to handle traffic flows transmitted over a multi-rate wireless communication channel • R = R1> R2> ・ ・ ・ > RC > 0 • Any flow, Flow j, with S(j) ≤ c and a negative normalized goodput gap, where c ≤ C is a system parameter for the generalized algorithm • Any flow, Flow j, with S(j) > c and its normalized goodput gap below its goodput threshold • Any backlogged flow
Minimum Transmission Bandwidth and GoodputGuarantees • Flow 1 : Good/Bad state 0.01s/0.09s • Flow 2 : Good/Bad state 0.09s/0.01s
Outcome Fairness Flow 1,3,4 : 200kbps Flow 2,5 : 100kbps
Distribution of Excess Bandwidth Flow 1,3,4 : 200kbps Flow 2 : 100kbps
Discussion on Goodput Threshold • it would be advantageous to set a higher goodput threshold for a flow with a better link • high-priority flow, its goodput threshold can be set to zero or close to zero • goodput threshold may also be changed dynamically according to the link quality and traffic load
Conclusions • To strike a balance between effort-fair and outcome-fair, BGFS-EBA permits a flow leading its target goodput to give up its current service opportunity to a lagging flow