1 / 29

Efficient Dynamic Aggregation

Efficient Dynamic Aggregation. Yitzhak Birk , Idit Keidar , Liran Liss, Assaf Schuster Technion. Dynamic Aggregation. Continuous monitoring of aggregate value over changing inputs Examples: More than 10% of sensors report of seismic activity Maximum temperature in data center

milos
Télécharger la présentation

Efficient Dynamic 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. Efficient Dynamic Aggregation Yitzhak Birk, Idit Keidar,Liran Liss, Assaf Schuster Technion

  2. Dynamic Aggregation • Continuous monitoring of aggregate value over changing inputs • Examples: • More than 10% of sensors report of seismic activity • Maximum temperature in data center • Average load in computation grid

  3. The Setting • Large graph (e.g., sensor network) • Direct communication only between neighbors • Each node has a changing input • Inputs change more frequently than topology • Consider topology as static • Aggregate function f on multiplicity of inputs • Oblivious to locations • Aggregate result computed at all nodes

  4. Goals for Dynamic Aggregation • Fast convergence • If from some time t onward inputs do not change … • Output stabilization time from t • Quiescence time from t • Note: nodes do not know when stabilization and quiescence are achieved • If after stabilization input changes abruptly… • Efficient communication • Zero communication when there are zero changes • Small changes  little communication

  5. Standard Aggregation Solution: Spanning Tree 20 black, 12 white Global communication! black! 7 black, 1 white black! 2 black 1 black

  6. Spanning Tree: Value Change 19 black, 13 white Global communication! 6 black, 2 white

  7. The Bad News • Virtually every aggregation function has instances that cannot be computed without communicating with the whole graph • E.g., majority voting when close to the threshold “every vote counts” • Worst case analysis: convergence, quiescence times are (diameter)

  8. Instance-Locality to the Rescue • Although some instances require global computation, most can stabilize (and become quiescent) locally • In small neighborhood, independent of graph size • Shown empirically [Wolff,Schuster03, Liss,Birk,Wolf,Schuster04] • Formal instance-based locality in other contexts • Local fault mending [Kutten,Peleg95, Kutten,Patt-Shamir97] • Growth-restricted graphs [Kuhn, Moscibroda, Wattenhofer05] • MST [Elkin04]

  9. “Per-Instance” Optimality Too Strong • Instance: assignment of inputs to nodes • For a given instance I, algorithm AIdoes: • if (my input is as in I) output f(I)else send message with input to neighbor • Upon receiving message, flood it • Upon collecting info from the whole graph, output f(I) • Convergence and output stabilization in zero time on I • Can you beat that? Need to measure optimality per-class notper-instance Challenge: capture attainable locality

  10. Veracity Radius (VR) for One-Shot Aggregation [BKLSW,PODC’06] • Roughly speaking: the min radius r0 such that"r> r0: all r-neighborhoods have same result • Example: majority Radius 1: wrong result Radius 2: correct result VR=2

  11. Veracity Radius Captures the Locality of One-Shot Aggregation [BKLSW,PODC’06] • Class-based lower bound • Both output stabilization and quiescence • For every r, for every algorithm A, there is an instance I with VR(I)  r on which A takes  r time • I-LEAG (Instance-Local Efficient Aggregation on Graphs) • Quiescence and output stabilization proportional to VR • Per-class within a factor of optimal • Local: depends on VR, not graph size! • Note: nodes do not know VR or when stabilization and quiescence are achieved • Can’t expect to know you’re “done” in dynamic aggregation…

  12. Naïve Dynamic Aggregation • Periodically, • Each node samples input, initiates I-LEAG • Each instance I of I-LEAG takes O(VR(I)) time, but sends (|V|) messages • Sends messages even when no input changes • Costly in sensor networks  • To save messages, must compromise freshness of result 

  13. Contributions • New lower bound • For algorithms that send zero messages when there are zero changes • Efficient multi-shot aggregation algorithm (MultI-LEAG) • Converges to correct result before sampling the inputs again • Sampling time may be proportional to graph size • Efficient dynamic aggregation algorithm (DynI-LEAG) • Sampling time is independent of graph size • Algorithm tracks global result as close as possible

  14. Dynamic Lower Bound • Previous sample (instance) also plays a role • Example (majority voting): • Multi-shot lower bound:max{VRprev,VR} • On quiescence and output stabilization • Assumes sending zero messages when there are zero changes I2 (0 changes) I1 (VR2) ! ? I3 (VR=0)

  15. Dynamic Aggregation: Take II • Initially, run local one-shot algorithm A • Store distance information travels in this instance, dist • Let D = A’s worst-case convergence time • Every D time, run a new iteration (MULTI-A) • If input did not change, do nothing • If input changed, run full information protocol up to dist • If new instance’s VR isn’t reached, invoke A anew • Update dist (~VR) • (~ VRprev) (~VR) • Matches max{VRprev,VR} lower bound • within same factor as A

  16. A is for I-LEAG • I-LEAG uses a pre-computed partition hierarchy • LPH: Local Partition Hierarchy – cluster sizes bounded both from above and from below (doubling sizes) • Spanning tree in each cluster, rooted at pivot • Computed once per topology • I-LEAG phases correspond to LPH levels • Active phase: full-information from cluster  pivot • Phase result communicated to cluster and its neighbors • Phase active only if there is a conflict in the previous level • Conflicts detected without new communication

  17. Multi-LEAG • The Veracity Level (VL) of node v is the highest LPH level in which v’s cluster has a conflict (VL<logVR+1) • A multi-LEAG iteration’s phases correspond to LPH levels: • Phase level < VL: propagate changes (if any) to pivot • active only if there are changes • Phase level  VL: fall back to I-LEAG • active only if new VR is larger than previous • Cache partial aggregate results in pivot nodes • allows conflict detection between active and passive clusters

  18. MultI-LEAG Operation Veracity Level Pivot nodes Physical nodes

  19. MultI-LEAG Operation • Case I: No changes … no conflicts … no conflicts … no changes to report All is quiet…

  20. Input Change no conflicts, no communication New veracity level !

  21. Abrupt Change Flips Outcome

  22. Abrupt Change Flips Outcome Clusters at VL recalculate, others forward up

  23. Abrupt Change Flips Outcome no conflicts, no communication New Veracity level

  24. MultI-LEAG Observations • O(max{VRprev,VR}) output stabilization and quiescence • Message efficient: • Communication only in clusters with changes, only when radius < max{VRprev,VR} • Sampling time is O(Diameter) • Good for cheap periodic aggregation • Can we do closer monitoring?

  25. Dynamic Aggregation Take III: DynI-LEAG • Sample inputs every O(1) link delays • Close monitoring, rapidly converges to correct result • Run multiple MultI-LEAG iterations concurrently • Challenges: • Pipelining phases with different (doubling) durations • Intricate interaction among concurrent instancesE.g., which phase 4 updates are used in a given phase 5 .. • Avoiding state explosion for multiple concurrent instances

  26. Ruler Pipelining • Partial iterations, fewer in every level • Changes only communicated once Full iteration Sampling interval Phase 2 Partial iteration Phase 1 Phase 0 t • Memory usage: O(log(Diameter))

  27. VL and Output Estimation • Problem: correct output and VL of an iteration is guaranteed only after O(Diameter) time • cannot wait that long… • Solution: choose iteration with highest VL according to most recent information • Use this VL for new iterations and its output as MultI-LEAG’s current output estimation • Eventual convergence and correctness guaranteed

  28. DynI-LEAG Operation The influence of a conflict is proportional to its level Phase below VL Phase above VL 2 1 0 t “Previous VL” = 2

  29. Conclusions • Local operation is possible • in dynamic systems • that solve inherently global problems • MultI-LEAG delivers periodic correct snapshots at minimal cost • DynI-LEAG responds immediately to input changes with a slightly higher message rate

More Related