1 / 27

Intelligent Packet Dropping for Optimal Energy-Delay Tradeoffs for Wireless

A(t). Energy. m (p(t), s(t)). Delay. Intelligent Packet Dropping for Optimal Energy-Delay Tradeoffs for Wireless. Michael J. Neely University of Southern California http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~mjneely/ ( full paper to appear in WiOpt 2006 ). *Sponsored by NSF OCE Grant 0520324. Good. A(t).

ilana
Télécharger la présentation

Intelligent Packet Dropping for Optimal Energy-Delay Tradeoffs for Wireless

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. A(t) Energy m(p(t), s(t)) Delay Intelligent Packet Dropping for Optimal Energy-Delay Tradeoffs for Wireless Michael J. Neely University of Southern California http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~mjneely/ (full paper to appear in WiOpt 2006) *Sponsored by NSF OCE Grant 0520324

  2. Good A(t) rate m Med m(P(t), S(t)) Bad power P Time slotted system (t {0, 1 , 2, …}) t 0 1 2 3 … Assumptions: Random Arrivals A(t) i.i.d. over slots. (Rate l bits/slot) 2) Random Channel states S(t) i.i.d. over slots. 3) Transmission Rate Function P(t) --- Power allocation during slot t S(t) --- Channel state during slot t m(P(t), S(t))

  3. A(t) m(P(t), S(t)) Fundamental Energy-Delay Tradeoff Theory and the Berry-Gallager Bound: Avg. Power Avg. Delay F(l) = Min. Avg. Energy Required for Stability [Berry 2000, 2002]

  4. Fundamental Energy-Delay Tradeoff Theory and the Berry-Gallager Bound: Avg. Power O(1/V) Avg. Delay V V In terms of a dimensionless index parameter V>0: [Berry 2000, 2002]

  5. Fundamental Energy-Delay Tradeoff Theory and the Berry-Gallager Bound: O(1/V) Avg. Power Avg. Delay V V In terms of a dimensionless index parameter V>0: [Berry 2000, 2002]

  6. Fundamental Energy-Delay Tradeoff Theory and the Berry-Gallager Bound: O(1/V) Avg. Power Avg. Delay V V In terms of a dimensionless index parameter V>0: [Berry 2000, 2002]

  7. Fundamental Energy-Delay Tradeoff Theory and the Berry-Gallager Bound: O(1/V) Avg. Power Avg. Delay V V In terms of a dimensionless index parameter V>0: [Berry 2000, 2002]

  8. Fundamental Energy-Delay Tradeoff Theory and the Berry-Gallager Bound: Avg. Power O(1/V) Avg. Delay V V In terms of a dimensionless index parameter V>0: [Berry 2000, 2002]

  9. Avg. Delay Fundamental Energy-Delay Tradeoff Theory and the Berry-Gallager Bound: Avg. Power O(1/V) V V Berry-Gallager Bound Assumes: Admissibility criteria Concave rate-power function i.i.d. arrivals A(t) 4. No Packet Dropping

  10. r A(t) (rate l) (1-r) Our Formulation: Intelligent Packet Dropping m(P(t), S(t)) Control Variables: Goal: Obtain an optimal energy-delay tradeoff Subject to: Admitted rate >= rl ( 0 < r < 1 )

  11. Energy-Delay Tradeoffs with Packet Dropping… O(1/V) Avg. Delay Avg. Power ? V V F* = F(lr) = New Min. Average Power Expenditure (required to support rate rl). r A(t) (rate l) (1-r)

  12. Energy-Delay Tradeoffs with Packet Dropping… O(1/V) Avg. Delay Avg. Power ? V V F* = F(lr) = New Min. Average Power Expenditure (required to support rate rl). r A(t) (rate l) (1-r)

  13. Energy-Delay Tradeoffs with Packet Dropping… ? O(1/V) Avg. Delay Avg. Power V V F* = F(lr) = New Min. Average Power Expenditure (required to support rate rl). r A(t) (rate l) (1-r)

  14. Energy-Delay Tradeoffs with Packet Dropping… ? O(1/V) Avg. Delay Avg. Power V V F* = F(lr) = New Min. Average Power Expenditure (required to support rate rl). r A(t) (rate l) (1-r)

  15. An Example of Naïve Packet Dropping: Random Bernoulli Acceptance with probability r. O(1/V) Avg. Delay Avg. Power F* = F(lr) V V Consider a system that satisfies all criteria for the Berry-Gallager bound, including i.i.d. arrivals every slot. After random packet dropping, arrivals are still i.i.d…. r A(t) (rate l) (1-r)

  16. An Example of Naïve Packet Dropping: Random Bernoulli Acceptance with probability r. O(1/V) Avg. Delay Avg. Power F* = F(lr) V V Consider a system that satisfies all criteria for the Berry-Gallager bound, including i.i.d. arrivals every slot. After random packet dropping, arrivals are still i.i.d., and hence performance is still governed by Berry-Gallager square root law. r A(t) (rate l) (1-r)

  17. But here we consider Intelligent Packet Dropping: achievable! O(1/V) Avg. Delay Avg. Power F* = F(lr) V V Thus: The square root curvature of the Berry Gallager bound is due only to a very small fraction of packets that arrive at innopportune times. r A(t) (rate l) (1-r)

  18. Algorithm Development: A preliminary Lemma: Lemma: If channel states are i.i.d. over slots: For any stabilizable input rate l, there exists a stationary randomized algorithm that chooses power P*(t) based only on the current channel state S(t), and yields: *This is an existential result: Constructing the policy could be difficult and would require full knowledge of channel probabilities.

  19. Algorithm 1: (Known channel probabilities) The Positive Drift Algorithm: Step 1 -- Emulate a finite buffer queueing system: A(t) U(t) Q = max buffer size

  20. Step 2 -- Apply the stationary policy P*(t) such that: (where r < r + e < 1) rate (r+e)l rate l Positive drift! mmax 0 Q

  21. Step 2 -- Apply the stationary policy P*(t) such that: (where r < r + e < 1) rate (r+e)l rate l Positive drift! mmax 0 Q Choose: e = O(1/V) , Q = O(log(V))

  22. Algorithm 2: (Unknown channel probabilities) Constructing a practical Dynamic Packet Dropping Algorithm: m(P(t), S(t)) rate l U(t) …but we still want to maintain mav at least (r+e)l… mmax 0 Q Define the Lyapunov Function: L(U) L(U) = ew(Q-U) U 0 Q

  23. (r + e)lmav < A(t) (rate l) m(P(t), S(t)) U(t) Want to ensure: Use the “virtual queue” concept for time average inequality constraints [Neely Infocom 2005] m(P(t), S(t)) X(t) (r+e)A(t)

  24. Let Z(t) := [U(t); X(t)] Form the mixed Lyapunov function: Define the Lyapunov Drift: Lyapunov Optimization Theory [Neely, Modiano 03, 05]: Similar to concept of “stochastic gradient” applied to a flow network -- [Lee, Mazumdar, Shroff 2005]

  25. The Dynamic Packet Dropping Algorithm: Every timeslot, observe: Queue values U(t),X(t) and Channel State S(t) 1. Allocate power P(t) that solves: 2. Iterate the virtual queue X(t) update equation with 3. Emulate the Finite Buffer Queue U(t).

  26. Theorem: For the Dynamic Packet Dropping Alg. achievable! O(1/V) Avg. Delay Avg. Power F* = F(lr) V V

  27. Conclusions: The Dynamic Algorithm does not require knowledge of channel probabilities, and yields a logarithmic power-delay tradeoff. Intelligent Packet Dropping Fundamentally improves the Power-delay tradeoff (from square root law to logarithm). Further: For a large class of systems, the [O(1/V), O(log(V))] tradeoff is necessary! Energy-Delay Tradeoffs for Multi-User Systems [Neely Infocom 06] “Super-fast” flow control for utility-delay tradeoffs [Neely Infocom 06]

More Related