1 / 48

Distributed Fair Scheduling in a Wireless LAN

Distributed Fair Scheduling in a Wireless LAN. Nitin Vaidya , Texas A&M University Victor Bahl , Microsoft Research Seema Gupta , now with Cisco MobiCom 2000. Distributed Scheduling : What & Why. Medium Access Control. Wireless medium is a broadcast medium

rasia
Télécharger la présentation

Distributed Fair Scheduling in a Wireless LAN

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. Distributed Fair Scheduling in a Wireless LAN Nitin Vaidya, Texas A&M University Victor Bahl, Microsoft Research Seema Gupta, now with Cisco MobiCom 2000

  2. Distributed Scheduling :What & Why

  3. Medium Access Control • Wireless medium is a broadcast medium • Transmissions by multiple nodes can interfere • Need medium access control (MAC) • Many proposals • Centralized • Distributed

  4. Centralized Protocols • Base station coordinates access to the wireless channel Node 1 Node 2 Base Station Node 3 Node n

  5. Distributed Protocols • All nodes have identical responsibilities Node 1 Node 2 Wireless LAN Node 3 Node n

  6. Disadvantages of Centralized Approach • If a node cannot talk to the base station, it cannot transmit to any other nodes • Base station needs to keep track of state of other nodes • Hard to use failure-prone nodes as coordinators in centralized protocols

  7. Fairness

  8. Fairness • Packets to be transmitted belong to several flows • Each flow is assigned aweight • Bandwidth assigned to each backlogged flow is proportional to its weight

  9. Fairness Three flows with weights 2, 1, 1 Allocated bandwidth Backlogged flows:

  10. Flow 1 Output link Flow 2 Flow n Fair Queueing • Many centralized fair queueing protocols exist • WFQ, WF2Q, SCFQ, SFQ, … • Scheduler needs to know state of all flows

  11. Distributed Fair Scheduling

  12. Our Objectives • Fully distributed fair scheduling protocol • All nodes have identical responsibilities • Nodes do not need to be aware of each other’s state • Maintain compatibility / resemblance with an existing standard • specifically, IEEE 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function

  13. Proposed Approach Combination of • IEEE 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function (DCF) • Carrier sense / collision avoidance • A centralized fair queueing protocol

  14. Basic Carrier Sense Approach • A node wishing to transmit waits until channel is sensed as idle, and then transmits • If two nodes are waiting to transmit, they will collide • Collision avoidance mechanism needed to avoid this

  15. IEEE 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function • Collision avoidance mechanism: When transmitting a packet, choose a backoff interval in the range [0,cw] • cw is contention window • Count down the backoff interval when medium is idle • When backoff interval reaches 0, transmit 0 cw

  16. B1 = 25 B1 = 5 wait data data wait B2 = 10 B2 = 20 B2 = 15 802.11 DCF Example B1 and B2 are backoff intervals at nodes 1 and 2 cw = 31

  17. Self-Clocked Fair Queueing (SCFQ)[Golestani] • A centralized fair scheduling protocol • But more amenable for a distributed implementation than many others • The steps involved in deriving proposeddistributed protocol starting from SCFQ are given in the paper • virtual time, start/finish tags • implementation does not need virtual time or tags

  18. Distributed Fair Scheduling (DFS) • Node with smallest “length/weight” should transmit first • Caveat: This is a somewhat imprecise statement. DFS (implicitly) compares so-called virtual finish tags, which are a function of length/weight • See paper for details on the finish tags • Backoff intervals used as a way to distributedly determine whose “length/weight” is smaller

  19. Distributed Fair Scheduling (DFS) • Choose backoff interval = packet length / weight packet length = 5 weight = 1/3 backoff interval = 5 / (1/3) = 15 slots

  20. B1 = 10 B1 = 5 B1 = 15 wait wait Collision ! data data B2 = 5 B2 = 5 B2 = 5 Distributed Fair Scheduling (DFS) Packet length = 15 Weight of node 1 = 1 ====> B1 = 15 / 1 = 15 Weight of node 2 = 3 ====> B2 = 15 / 3 = 5

  21. Collisions • Collisions occur when two nodes count down to 0 simultaneously • In centralized fair queueing, ties can be broken without causing “collisions” • To reduce the possibility of collisions: Backoff interval = Scaling_Factor * length / weight * random number with mean 1

  22. Backoff Interval • Initial formula: Length / weight = 15 / 1 = 15 • Scaling_factor * length / weight * random number =4 * 15 / 1 * [0.9,1.1] = [54,66] 0 15

  23. Backoff Interval 802.11 0 Proposed DFS 0

  24. Collisions Resolution • Collision occurs when two nodes count down to 0 simultaneously • Counting to 0 implies that it is a given node’s “turn” to transmit • To reduce “priority” reversals, a small backoff interval is chosen after the first collision • Backoff interval increased exponentially on further collisions

  25. Impact of Small Weights • Backoff interval: Scaling_factor * length / weight * random number • Backoff intervals can become large when weights are small • Large backoff intervals may degrade performance (time wasted in counting down)

  26. Impact of Small Weights • Recall: Backoff intervals are being used to compare “length/weight” • Intuition: Any non-decreasing function of lenghth/weight may be used to obtain backoff intervals

  27. Alternative Mappings Chosen backoff interval Linear mapping SQRT EXP Scaling_factor * length / weight * random number

  28. Alternative Mappings • Advantage • smaller backoff intervals • less time wasted in counting down when weights of all backlogged flows are small • Disadvantage • backoff intervals that are different on a linear scale may become identical on the compressed scale • possibility for greater number of collisions

  29. Performance Evaluation • Using modified ns-2 simulator: 2 Mbps channel • Number of nodes = N • Number of flows = N/2 • Odd-numbered nodes are destinations, even-numbered nodes are sources • Unless otherwise specified: • flow weight = 1 / number of flows • backlogged flows with packet size 584 bytes (including UDP/IP headers) • Scaling_Factor = 0.02

  30. Fairness Index • Fairness measured as a function of (throughput T / weightf) for each flowf over an interval of time • Unless specified, the interval is 6 seconds

  31. Throughput / Weight Variation Across Flows (with 16 Flows) 802.11 Flatter curve is fairer DFS is fairer Throughput / Weight Flow destination identifier

  32. Throughput - Fairness Trade-Off 802.11 Aggregate throughput (all flows combined) Number of flows

  33. Throughput - Fairness Trade-Off Fairness index 802.11 Number of flows

  34. Scaled 802.11 • Fairness of 802.11 can be improved by using larger backoff intervals • Is DFS fairer simply because it uses large backoff intervals ? • Scaled 802.11 = 802.11 which uses backoff interval range comparable with DFS

  35. Short-Term Fairness Narrow distribution is fairer DFS is fairer DFS Frequency Scaled 802.11 802.11 Number of packets transmitted by a flow (over 0.04 second windows)

  36. Fairness versus Sampling Interval Size(24 flows) DFS Scaled 802.11 Fairness index 802.11 Interval Size

  37. Alternative Mappings for Backoff Intervals • See additional data in the paper • EXP and SQRT improve throughput compared to LINEAR mapping when allbackloggedflows havelowweights • but not too impressively • If at least one backlogged flow has a high weight, not much benefit

  38. Conclusions(supporting arguments for some conclusions not presented in the talk: please see the paper) • DFS improves fairness compared to 802.11 and Scaled 802.11 • Alternative mappings somewhat beneficial • No distributed fair scheduling protocol may accurately emulate work-conserving centralized protocols (unless clocks are synchronized)

  39. Conclusions • Possible to augment DFS with other techniques to improve fairness in presence of transmission errors • see Seema Gupta’s M.S. thesis • No performance cost even if weight assigned to a flow is changed on a per-packet basis • Execution complexity of centralized protocols would increase • Possible to handle multiple flows per node

  40. Other Potential Applications of DFS • Wired LANs • Wireless multi-hop networks • see our 1999 Microsoft Research technical report for some initial ideas

  41. Issues for Further Work DFS is only the first step towards practical fairness: • How to choose parameters such as Scaling_Factor ? • Failure to choose reasonable values can degrade throughput or short-term fairness • How to choose flow weights ? • Let upper layer specify dynamically, or • Static assignment based on static criteria • Ad hoc network-related issues

  42. Thank you! www.cs.tamu.edu/faculty/vaidya

  43. Thank you! www.cs.tamu.edu/faculty/vaidya

  44. Flow throughput Impact of Packet Size Three flows with different packet sizes 802.11 584 328 200 Packet size (bytes)

  45. Impact of Scaling Factor(six flows with weights 1/2,1/4,1/8,1/16,1/32,1/32) DFS Fairness index Scaling Factor

  46. Impact of Scaling Factor(six flows with weights 1/2,1/4,1/8,1/16,1/32,1/32) Aggregate throughput DFS Scaling factor

  47. Related Past Work • Centralized fair queueing on wired links [Bennett,Demers,Parekh] • Centralized fair queueing in wireless environments, taking location-dependent errors into account [Bharghavan,Ramanathan,Zhang] • Distributed Real-time scheduling [Sobrinho] • Distributed Priority-based scheduling

  48. Backoff Interval • Scaling factor • Small number : May result in more collisions • Large number: Larger overhead • Random number range • Small range will cause more collisions between synchronized nodes • How to choose these adaptively ? • This paper punts the issue • But heuristic solutions are easy to define • Heuristics yet to be evaluated

More Related