Group Title: Department of Computer and Information Science and Engineering Technical Reports
Title: An Efficient approximation algorithm for the file redistribution scheduling problem in fully connected networks
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00095120/00001
 Material Information
Title: An Efficient approximation algorithm for the file redistribution scheduling problem in fully connected networks
Alternate Title: Department of Computer and Information Science and Engineering Technical Report
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Varadarajan, Ravi
Rivera-Vega, Pedro I.
Affiliation: University of Florida
University of Puerto Rico -- Rio Piedras
Publisher: Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Copyright Date: 1992
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00095120
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

199249 ( PDF )


Full Text









An Efficient Approximation Algorithm for the

File Redistribution Scheduling Problem in

Fully Connected Networks


Ravi Varadarajan* Pedro I. Rivera-Vegat



Abstract

We consider the problem of transferring a set of files from their given loca-
tions in a fully connected network to their respective destinations in minimum
time. The network has two unidirectional links, one in each direction, between
every pair of nodes. We assume that it takes unit time to transfer a file across
a link and no link is used by more than one file at any time. There is no restric-
tion on storage capacity at the nodes. The objective of the File Redistribution
Scheduling problem is to find routes for the files and a schedule for the use
of the links along the routes so as to complete the transfer of all the files in
minimum time. This problem has been shown to be NP-hard even with the
restriction that each file must have at most one hop in its route. In this paper,
we present an efficient polynomial time algorithm that finds an approximate
solution to the problem. In this approximate solution, each file has at most one
hop in its route and all the files can be transferred within twice the time taken
by an optimal schedule.



1 Introduction


In this paper, we consider the problem of scheduling the redistribution of files in a
computer network which is fully connected, that is, between any two nodes, there are
two communication links, one in each direction. In this problem, the initial locations
of files as well as their destinations are known beforehand. Every file takes constant
*Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
ravi@cis.ufl.edu
tDepartment of Mathematics, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, P.R. 00931
p_rivera@upr upr. clu. edu









time (without loss of generality, assumed to be unit time) to move along any link.
Each link can be used to transfer only one file during any time unit and every node
in the network can simultaneously send and receive as many files as the number of
outgoing and incoming links. A file can be moved in a store and forward fashion
along a route from its source to its destination. There is no restriction on the storage
capacity of the node. We also ignore the processing costs of the nodes in directing
the transfer of files; this is a reasonable assumption since the complete schedule is
determined beforehand and the nodes do negligible processing during the transfer.
The objective is to find a schedule that minimizes the completion time of the transfer
referred to as the makespan of the schedule. The schedule includes for each file, a
route as well as the times for usage of the links in this route. In this paper, we do not
address the issue of how the schedule is efficiently transmitted to the different nodes
of the network.

The problem is of practical importance in distributed and parallel computer sys-
tems. For example, in a distributed database system, redistribution of data is period-
ically required in order to maintain a desired level of performance usually measured
by average execution time of transactions[7]. In this case, the redistribution should be
accomplished as soon as possible since the system cannot be fully operational while
it is taking place. In the parallel processing context, this problem is related to the
problem of routing packets among the processors of a network ([9, 5, 6]). In another
related problem, referred to as File Transfer Problem (FTP), ([2, 3, 11]), the objective
is to find a schedule with minimum makespan for the transfer of files in a network
with no restriction in use of communication links but with the constraint that each
file transfer requires communication modules at both ends; there is a limited number
of such modules available at each node. Our problem is distinct from the FTP and
to avoid confusion, we call our problem the "file redistribution scheduling problem".

The file redistribution scheduling problem has been shown to be intractable [8]
even when the schedules are restricted to two-edge schedules. These are schedules in
which every file has at most one hop in its route to its destination. In [8], the authors
present a two-phase approach to find two-edge schedules. In the first phase, each file
is assigned a two-edge route and in the second phase, a schedule for use of the links
along the assigned routes is determined. The schedule determined in the second phase
allows all the files to be transferred in minimum time for the pre-assigned routes. To
determine the routes in the first phase, an IP formulation and a heuristic strategy
were given. The former approach leads to an optimal two-edge schedule while the
latter had been experimentally shown to provide close-to-optimal schedules.

In this paper, we present an algorithm which is guaranteed to find a schedule with








makespan that is no more than twice the makespan of an optimal schedule. In this
approximate solution, each file has at most one hop in its route. Unlike the earlier
approach, this algorithm finds routes as well as a schedule at the same time. We
emphasize that in proving the accuracy bound of our approximate solution, we use
a simple lower bound for the optimal makespan that in many cases may be close to
one half the optimal makespan. This indicates that our approximation algorithm can
provide an optimal solution in many (but not all) cases. The schedule determined
by our algorithm has an advantageous characteristic in that at most n packets are
queued up at a node during the file transfer (regardless of the number of packets
involved in the transfer) where n is the number of nodes in the network. This can
reduce the buffer capacity required at the intermediate nodes along a route.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we give a formal description of
the problem with necessary notations. In Section 3, we present our approximation
algorithm followed by its proof of correctness and time complexity analysis in Section
4. Finally, we summarize our results and discuss the scope of future work.



2 Problem Description and Notation

A redistribution model M is a tuple (V, E, S, D, F) where

G = (V, E) is a directed graph, where V is the set of vertices representing the nodes of
the network and E the set of edges representing unidirectional communication
links. In our problem, E = {(u, v) u, v G V and u f v}.

F - set of files that need to be reallocated, F = {fi, f2,.. ., fm.

S - source function, S : F - V where S(fi) indicates the node where file f/ is
initially located.

D - destination function, D : F - V where D(fi) indicates the node to which f/
has to be transferred.

It is assumed that IVI = n and the nodes in G are numbered 1, 2,..., n. We say
that a file f is of type [i,j] if S(f) = i and D(f) = j. Any schedule is represented
by a function S : E x - F U {e}, where A = {0, 1, 2,...}; it is defined as follows:

S(et) f if file f uses link e at time t
S e if no file uses link e at t

For each file f, let tf(S) be the time taken by f to move from its source to its
destination in the schedule S. The makespan of the schedule S, denoted by T(S), is








given by maxfF tf(S). For a given redistribution model M, the file redistribution
scheduling problem is one of determining a schedule with minimum makespan. We
denote the optimum makespan for M by Topt(M).

In the case of fully connected networks, the transfer model is completely deter-
mined by an n x n non-negative integer matrix which we call the "requirement matrix".
We will use M to denote also the requirement matrix corresponding to the transfer
model M. In the requirement matrix M, M[i,j] = mij where mij is the number of
files of type [i,j]. Let mi = L - myj denote the number of files having node i as the
source, and m' = Fj= mji the number of files having node i as the destination.



3 The Approximation Algorithm

The fact that the problem has been shown to be intractable [8] motivates us to seek
efficient approximation strategies which guarantee schedules with bounded makespans
with respect to optimal values. In this paper, we present one such approximation
algorithm. Our algorithm constructs routes with at most one hop between sources
and destinations. Before we present the details of the algorithm, we give the intuitive
idea behind our approach. First we introduce some definitions and facts.

Definition 3.1 The critical sum of an n x n requirement matrix M is given by
CS(M) = max maximi L j myj, max, L) mji). A requirement matrix is perfect, if
j mrij = L mji = CS(M) for all i, or in other words, the sum of entries of the
matrix along any row or column is the same, equal to the critical sum of the matrix.

Fact 3.2 For an nxn requirement matrix M, let M = maxli<, T7i, , Top1(M) > L, where L = rcS ].

Given an n x n requirement matrix M, let us define a bipartite multigraph GM =
(VM,EM), where VM = {uit1 < i < n}U{vj1 < j < n} and EM has myj edges
between ui and vj for all 1 < i,j < n. Suppose the requirement matrix M is an n x n
perfect matrix with CS(M) = n. As we see later, this will allow us to decompose
EM into n complete matching where a matching is a set of edges with no vertices
in common and a complete matching includes all the vertices of the graph. Thus all
the files that correspond to edges of a matching have no common source and common
destination and if they are routed through the same intermediate node then they do
not have conflicts in using the links. For example, in a four-node network, when a
matching contains edges (1,3) and (2,4), we can route two files, one of type [1,3]
and another of type [2, 4] to go through an intermediate node (say) 4. This means
that [1,3] file will use the route 1 - 4 - 3 and at the same time, the [2,4] file will








use route 2 - 4 - 4 meaning that it will use the direct link (2, 4) during the first time
unit. Moreover, if we assign different intermediate nodes (note that there are at most
n complete matching) to routes of the files in different matching, then all the files
can be routed without any conflicts in using the links and the whole transfer can be
completed in two time units. This schedule thus has optimal makespan for this case.

Extending this idea further, let us suppose that the n x n requirement matrix M
is an arbitrary perfect matrix. Then we can decompose EM into CS(M) complete
matching, which can be divided into [C(M)] sets, each set containing n complete
matching with the possible exception of one set that can contain less than n match-
ings. We can now do routing in [SM) ] phases. In each phase, using the approach
discussed above, we complete in 2 time units, the transfer of all the files that cor-
respond to edges of the complete matching contained in one set. Thus the whole
transfer can be completed in 2 [ ] time units; by Fact 3.2, this is no more than
2L and hence no more than 2Topt(M).

To tackle the case when M is an arbitrary n x n matrix, not necessarily perfect,
we make use of the following result proved in [10].

Lemma 3.3 Given any nonnegative integer square matrix M, there is a square ma-
trix Z such that M + Z is a perfect matrix and CS(M + Z) = CS(M).

The matrix Z simply indicates the "dummy" files that need to be transferred. The
above result indicates that we can complete the transfer of all the files in M as well
as in Z in 2Topt(M). Note that a dummy file is not actually transferred but rather
used as a theoretical device to denote "idle" states of links in a route. We are now
ready to give the formal description of our algorithm.

Algorithm Schedule: Given M, the requirement matrix, produces a schedule S.

begin
1. FindPerfectMatrix(M,E,W)
2. Construct a bipartite multigraph Gw = (Vw, Ew) corresponding to the matrix W
3. r := 0
4. while Ew # 0 do
begin
5. FindMaxMatching(Gw,R)
6. q := (r + 1) mod n
7. t:= 2 * (r div n)
8. while R # 0 do
begin
9. Pick edge (ui, vj) in R









10. if mrj > 0 then
begin
11. S((i, q), t):= fij
12. S((q,j),t+ 1):= fi
13. mij := mj 1
14. Mark file fij as scheduled
end
15. R := R - {(u1, vj)}
end
16. Ew := Ew - R
17. r := r + 1
end
end Schedule

A few words on the algorithm. In step 5, we invoke the subroutine FindMaxMatch-
ing to find a maximum size matching R of the bipartite graph Gw. For this, we use
the algorithm of [4]. In step 1, we invoke the subroutine FindPerfectMatrix to find
a non-negative square matrix E and a perfect non-negative square matrix W with
the same critical sum as M such that M + E = W. The proof of Lemma 3.3 given in
[10] gives an implicit procedure to construct these matrices and we give an explicit ef-
ficient procedure below. The procedure we use is identical to the North-West-Corner
(NWC) rule used in finding a feasible allocation in the transportation problem. In
steps 11, 12, 13, and 14, fij represents any file of type [i,j] that has not been marked
as scheduled.

FindPerfectMatrix(M,E,W): Finds E and W such that W+E = M and CS(M) =
CS(W).


begin


Compute mi := j_=, mij and mi := Z' 1 mji, 1 < i < n
Initialize Ei := 0 for all 1 < i,j < n
Let ai = CS(M) - mi and bj = CS(M) - mn for all 1 < i,j <_ n
Find k := min{1 < i < nlai > 0} and 1:= min{1 < j < nlbj > 0}
If no such k or 1 exists then go to step 13
EkI := min{ak, b}
ak := ak - Ekl and bl := bf - Eki
If ak = 0 then set k := min{k < i < nlai > 0}
If no such k exists then go to step 13
If b1 = 0 then set 1 := min{l < j < nlbj > 0}
If no such 1 exists then go to step 13








12. Go to step 6
13. Wij := Eij+ Mij for all 1 < i,j < n
end FindPerfectMatrix



4 Correctness and Makespan of the Schedule Pro-

duced

It is easy to see the termination of the proposed approximation algorithm. We need
to show that the algorithm produces a valid schedule, and also estimate the deviation
of the makespan of the schedule produced by the algorithm for a transfer model with
respect to the the optimal makespan for the same transfer model. To prove this, we
need the following result.

Lemma 4.1 Let (X, E, Y) be a bipartite multi-graph in which the maximal degree of
a node is p. Let X1 be the set of nodes in X with degree equal to p. T7/ , there exists
a matching M which matches X1 to a subset of Y.

Proof: See [1], pp.46 I

Now we are ready to state the theorem that proves correctness of the algorithm.

Theorem 4.2 The schedule S produced by the algorithm satisfies the following:

(1) S is a valid schedule, and

(2) T(S) < 2T0p(M).

Proof: We will assume the correctness of the two procedures FindPerfectMatrix
and FindMaxMatching. To prove (1) we need to show that, under S, each file is
assigned to use a route from its source to its destination, and no two files are assigned
to use the same link at the same time. Note that the iteration of step 4 of algorithm
Schedule terminates only after all the files (corresponding to edges of the graph Ew)
are assigned a two-edge route in steps 11 and 12. Suppose two files fab and fed, were
both assigned to use the link (i,j), i f j, at the same time. Then either i = a = c
and the files are assigned routes i j - b and i - j - d respectively or j = b = d and
the files are assigned routes a - i -j and c - i -j respectively. In both cases, they
are assigned the same intermediate node and hence must have been part of the same
maximum matching obtained in step 6. This is a contradiction since the matching
has two edges incident on the same vertex.

To prove (2), we first show that in every iteration of the while loop of step 4, the
maximum matching found in step 5 has size equal to n. By Lemma 4.1, it is sufficient








to show that the bipartite multigraph (Vw, Ew) that remains at the beginning of
i-th iteration is a regular graph of degree CS(M) - i + 1. When i = 1, it is obvious
since step (2) returns a perfect matrix with CS(W) = CS(M). For the inductive
step, we use the induction hypothesis and Lemma 4.1 to conclude that the claim
is true for i > 1. Thus the while loop of step 4 is executed CS(M) times and in
each phase that consists of two time units, all the files (including dummy files) that
correspond to edges in n complete matching can be routed from their respective
sources to their destinations. Thus the schedule has -t M)] phases and has the
makespan t(S) = 2 M)] < 2L < 2Topt(M). o
Remark: The bound 2F[- i)L] obtained above for the schedule produced by our
algorithm is tight in the sense that it can be equal to optimal makespan. Consider
an n node network, where n > 3. Let A be a subset of the vertex set with |AI = [L].
Suppose (n - 1) files need to be sent from each of the vertices in A to each vertex in
V -A, where V is the vertex set of the graph. It is obvious that the optimal makespan
is equal to (n - 1). On the other hand L = []. Thus the optimal makespan is equal
to ( - ) L, which is equal to the above bound when n is even and n divides L.


5 Time Complexity

Except for steps 1 and 5 in the algorithm, the remaining steps are straightforward,
requiring only 0(1) time each. Step 1 invokes FindPerfectMatrix routine that
is easily seen to have a time complexity of O(n2). For step 5, we can use the al-
gorithm of [4]. For a bipartite graph G = (V,E) it has worst-case running time
0((|V|+|E|) JVI). At the beginning of the ith iteration of the while loop (step 4), the
graph Gw has IV| = 2n and IEwl = (CS(M)-i+1)n. Suppose we define a new graph
G' = (Vw,E') where E' = {(u, vj)13 at least one edge from ui to vj in Ew}.
This new graph has at most one edge between two vertices. The number of edges
of Gw during iteration i is at most equal to e = min{r2, (CS(M) - i + 1)n}. Note
that the graph Gw has a matching of size n if and only if the graph Gw has a
matching of size n. Thus the complexity of step 5 during iteration i is given by
O((n+rei)v ). Hence step 5 has overall worst-case running time 0(Z%< (M) n+e)v n)
= O(min{R2CS(M), (CS(M))2rn}/n) which is equal to O(nim min{m, n}) using the
fact that CS(M) = O(m), where m is the number of files. The overall complexity of
the algorithm is thus seen to be O(n2 + rnm min{m, n}).









6 Example


Consider a 4-node fully connected network with the requirement matrix M given as
follows:
0232
5020
2001
0000

Thus CS(M) = 7. In step 1 of algorithm Schedule, we create the following perfect
matrix W given below
0232
5020
2401
0124
The while loop of step 4 is executed 7 times and hence the routing schedule is divided
into [-] = 2 phases with each phase consisting of 2 time units. During each iteration,
a 0 - 1 permutation matrix is identified in step 5 of the algorithm and all the files
corresponding to this matrix are routed through the same intermediate node. For
example, in iterations 1-4, we can identify the following matrices.

0 1 00 00 10 00 10 0001
1 000 1 000 1000 1 000
0 0 1 0 1 0 1 00 0 1 00
0 1 0 0001 000 1 00 1 0

Using the first matrix, we obtain routes 1 - 1 - 2, 2 - 1 - 1, 3 - 1 - 4. Note that the
first two files in the above routes use direct links 1 - 2 and 2 -1 during the second
and first time units respectively. Also the file of type [4, 3] is a "dummy" file and
hence is not scheduled in steps 11 and 12 of the algorithm. Using the remaining three
matrices, we obtain routes 1 - 2 3,2 -2 -1,1 - 3, 2- 3 -1, 2-4-1 and
1 - 4 - 4 for the first two time units. For the second phase (iterations 5-7), we obtain
the following permutation matrices.

S0 1 0 0 00 1 0 1 00
1 0 0 0 00 1 0 00 1 0
0 1 00 1 0 0 1 000
0001 0 1 00 000 1

Using these matrices, we obtain the routes 1-1-3, 2-1-1, 1-2-4, 2-2-3, 3-2-1,
1 - 3 - 2, 2 - 3 - 3, 3 - 3 - 1 for the third and fourth time units. The makespan is








4 time units for this example. Note that the optimal makespan for this example is 3
time units; to see this, let all the files except 2 files of type [2, 1] use direct link and
let the two files of type [2, 1] follow routes 2 - 3 - 1 and 2 - 4 - 1 respectively.



7 Conclusions


In this paper, we have given an efficient algorithm for determining a schedule for the
file redistribution scheduling problem in fully connected networks. This schedule has
a makespan that is within twice the optimal makespan. Among many related open
questions that we are currently investigating include the following: (1) Can we modify
the proposed approximation algorithm so that it provides a schedule with makespan
closer to optimal (especially when the optimal makespan is closer to L than to 2L) ?
and (2) Can we identify other cases, besides those discussed in [8], for which polyno-
mial time algorithms to determine optimal schedules exist ? It is also possible to get
improved schedules by first computing only the routes using the algorithm proposed
in this paper and then determining the schedules using the scheduling algorithm pro-
posed in [8]. The investigation of the accuracy of such schedules is also an interesting
issue to explore.



References

[1] R. A. Brualdi, "Transversal Theory and Graphs," Studies in Graph Ti.. ry,
Vol.11, Part I, 1975, pp.23-88.

[2] H.-A. Choi and S. L. Hakimi, "Data Transfers in Networks," Algorithmica, No.
3, 1"l' pp. 223-245.

[3] E. G. Coffman, JR, M. R. Garey, D. S. Johnson and A. S. Lapaugh, "Scheduling
File Transfers," SIAM Journal on Computing , Vol. 14, No. 3, August l'"-. pp.
744-780.

[4] J. E. Hopcroft and R. M. Karp, "An n5/2 algorithm for maximum matching in
bipartite graphs," SIAM Journal on Computing, 2 (Dec. 1973),pp. 225-231.

[5] D. Peleg and E. Upfal, "The Generalized Packet Routing Problem," Ti ...retical
Computer Science, 53, 1987, pp. 281-293.

[6] D. Peleg and E. Upfal, "The Token Distribution Problem," SIAM Journal on
Computing, Vol. 18, No. 2, April 1989, pp. 229-143.








[7] P.I. Rivera-Vega, R. Varadarajan and S.B. Navathe, "Scheduling Data Redis-
tribution in Distributed D-,l.1..... -", Technical Report, Database Research and
Development Center, University of Florida, 1989.

[8] P.I. Rivera-Vega. R. Varadarajan and S.B. Navathe, "Scheduling Data Transfers
in Fully Connected Networks," Networks: An International Journal, to appear.

[9] L. G. Valiant, "A Scheme for Fast Parallel Communication," SIAM Journal on
Computing, Vol.11, 2, May 1982, pp. 350-361.

[10] E. A. Varvarigos and D. P. Bertsekas, "Communication Algorithms for Isotropic
Tasks in Hypercubes and Wraparound Meshes," Parallel Computing, to appear.

[11] J. Whitehead, "The Complexity of File Transfer Scheduling with Forwarding,"
SIAM Journal on Computing, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 222-245, April 1990.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs