skip to main content
article

Fairness and classifications

Published:01 March 2007Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The growing trend in computer systems towards using scheduling policies that prioritize jobs with small service requirements has resulted in a new focus on the fairness of such policies. In particular, researchers have been interested in whether prioritizing small job sizes results in large jobs being treated "unfairly." However, fairness is an amorphous concept and thus difficult to define and study. This article provides a short survey of recent work in this area.

References

  1. B. Avi-Itzhak and H. Levy. On measuring fairness in queues. Adv. of Appl. Prob., 36(3):919--936, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. B. Avi-Itzhak, H. Levy, and D. Raz. Quantifying fairness in queueing systems: Principles, approaches and applicability. Prob. in the Eng. and Info. Sciences, in press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Baily, Foster, Hoang, Jette, Klingner, Kramer, Macaluso, Messina, Nielsen, Reed, Rudolph, Smith, Tomkins, Towns, and Vildibill. Valuation of ultra-scale computing systems. White Paper, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. N. Bansal and M. Harchol-Balter. Analysis of SRPT scheduling: Investigating unfairness. In Proc. of ACM Sigmetrics, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M. Bender, S. Chakrabarti, and S. Muthukrishnan. Flow and stretch metrics for scheduling continous job streams. In Proc. of the 9th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. Borst, O. Boxma, R. Núñez-Queija, and B. Zwart. The impact of the service discipline on delay asymptotics. Performance Evaluation, 54:175--206, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. Borst, R. Núñez-Queija, and B. Zwart. Sojourn time asymptotics in processor-sharing queues. Queueing Sys., 53(1--2), 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. P. Brown. Comparing FB and PS scheduling policies. Perf. Eval. Rev., 34(3), 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. N. Duffield, W. Massey, and W. Whitt. A nonstationary offered-load model for packet networks. Telecommunication Systems, 13:271--296, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. H. Feng, V. Misra, and D. Rubenstein. PBS: a unified priority-based cpu scheduler. In Proc. of ACM Sigmetrics, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. E. Friedman and S. Henderson. Fairness and efficiency in web server protocols. In Proc. of ACM Sigmetrics, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. G. L. Choudhury and W. Whitt. Heavy-traffic asymptotic expansions for the asymptotic decay rates in the BMAP/G/1 queue. Stochastic Models, 10:453--498, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. M. Gong and C. Williamson. Quantifying the properties of SRPT scheduling. In IEEE/ACM Symposium on Mod., Anal., and Sim. of Comp. and Telecomm. Sys. (MASCOTS), 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. M. Gong and C. Williamson. Simulation evaluation of hybrid SRPT scheduling policies. In Proc of IEEE MASCOTS, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. M. Gong and C. Williamson. Revisiting unfairness in web server scheduling. Computer Networks, 50(13):2183--2203, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. M. Harchol-Balter and A. Downey. Exploiting process lifetime distributions for dynamic load balancing. Transactions on Computer Systems, 15(3), 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. M. Harchol-Balter, B. Schroeder, M. Agrawal, and N. Bansal. Size-based scheduling to improve web performance. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 21(2), May 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. M. Harchol-Balter, K. Sigman, and A. Wierman. Asymptotic convergence of scheduling policies with respect to slowdown. Performance Evaluation, 49(1--4):241--256, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. M. Hu, J. Zhang, and J. Sadowsky. A size-aided opportunistic scheduling scheme in wireless networks. In Globecom, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. F. Kelly. Reversibility and Stochastic Networks. John Wiley & Sons, 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. M. Kendall. The Advanced Theory of Statistics. Griffin, London, 1945.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. A. A. Kherani and R. Núñez-Queija. TCP as an implementation of age-based scheduling: fairness and performancs. In IEEE Infocom, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. T. Matis and R. Feldman. Using cumulant functions in queueing theory. Queueing Sys., 40:341--353, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. S. Muthukrishnan, R. Rajaraman, A. Shaheen, and J. Gehrke. Online scheduling to minimize average stretch. In Proc. of Found, of Comp. Sci., 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. Nuyens and A. Wierman. The foreground-background queue: A survey. Under submission, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. M. Nuyens, A. Wierman, and B. Zwart. Preventing large sojourn times using SMART scheduling. Operations Research, in press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. I. A. Rai, G. Urvoy-Keller, and E. Biersack. Analysis of LAS scheduling for job size distributions with high variance. In Proc. of ACM Sigmetrics, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. I. A. Rai, G. Urvoy-Keller, M. Vernon, and E. W. Biersack. Performance modeling of LAS based scheduling in packet switched networks. In Proc. of ACM Sigmetrics-Performance, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. M. Rawat and A. Kshemkalyani. SWIFT: Scheduling in web servers for fast response time. In Symp. on Net. Comp. and App., 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. J. Rawls. A theory of social justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. D. Raz, B. Avi-Itzhak, and H. Levy. Fairness considerations in multi-server and multi-queue systems. In Valuetools, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. D. Raz, H. Levy, and B. Avi-Itzhak. A resource-allocation queueing fairness measure. In Proc. of ACM Sigmetrics-Performance, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. R. Rhodes, M. P. Battin, and A. Silvers. Medicine and social justice. Oxford University Press, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. R. Righter, J. Shanthikumar, and G. Yamazaki. On external service disciplines in single stage queueing systems. J. of Applied Probability, 27:409--416, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. W. Sandmann. A discrimination frequency based queueing fairness measure with regard to job seniority and service requirement. In Proc. of Euro NGI Conf. on Next Generation Int. Nets, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. L. E. Schrage. A proof of the optimality of the shortest remaining processing time discipline. Operations Research, 16:678--690, 1968.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. L. E. Schrage and L. W. Miller. The queue M/G/1 with the shortest remaining processing time discipline. Operations Research, 14:670--684, 1966.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. A. Silberschatz and P. Galvin. Operating System Concepts, 5th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. W. Stallings. Operating Systems, 2nd Edition. Prentice Hall, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. A. Tanenbaum. Modern Operating Systems. Prentice Hall, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. A. Wierman and M. Harchol-Balter. Classifying scheduling policies with respect to unfairness in an M/GI/1. In Proc. of ACM Sigmetrics, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. A. Wierman and M. Harchol-Balter. Classifying scheduling policies with respect to higher moments of response time. In Proc. of ACM Sigmetrics, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. A. Wierman, M. Harchol-Balter, and T. Osogami. Nearly insensitive bounds on SMART scheduling. In Proc. of ACM Sigmetrics, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. C. Yang, A. Wierman, S. Shakkottai, and M. Harchol-Balter. Tail asymptotics for policies favoring short jobs in a many-flows regime. In Proc. of ACM Sigmetrics, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. S. Yang and G. de Veciana. Enhancing both network and user performance for networks supporting best effort traffic. Trans. on Networking, 12(2):349--360, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Fairness and classifications

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            • Published in

              cover image ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review
              ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review  Volume 34, Issue 4
              March 2007
              69 pages
              ISSN:0163-5999
              DOI:10.1145/1243401
              Issue’s Table of Contents

              Copyright © 2007 Author

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 1 March 2007

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • article

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader