Universal Scheduling for Networks with Arbitrary Traffic, Channels, and Mobility Michael J. Neely, University of Southern California Proc. IEEE Conf. on.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Mobility Increase the Capacity of Ad-hoc Wireless Network Matthias Gossglauser / David Tse Infocom 2001.

Advertisements

Delay Analysis and Optimality of Scheduling Policies for Multihop Wireless Networks Gagan Raj Gupta Post-Doctoral Research Associate with the Parallel.

Optimal Pricing in a Free Market Wireless Network Michael J. Neely University of Southern California *Sponsored in part.

Network Utility Maximization over Partially Observable Markov Channels 1 1 Channel State 1 = ? Channel State 2 = ? Channel State 3 = ? Restless.

Stochastic optimization for power-aware distributed scheduling Michael J. Neely University of Southern California t ω(t)

Dynamic Data Compression in Multi-hop Wireless Networks Abhishek B. Sharma (USC) Collaborators: Leana Golubchik Ramesh Govindan Michael J. Neely.

Tradeoffs between performance guarantee and complexity for distributed scheduling in wireless networks Saswati Sarkar University of Pennsylvania Communication.

Delay Reduction via Lagrange Multipliers in Stochastic Network Optimization Longbo Huang Michael J. Neely WiOpt *Sponsored in part by NSF.

Resource Allocation in Wireless Networks: Dynamics and Complexity R. Srikant Department of ECE and CSL University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

EE 685 presentation Optimal Control of Wireless Networks with Finite Buffers By Long Bao Le, Eytan Modiano and Ness B. Shroff.

DYNAMIC POWER ALLOCATION AND ROUTING FOR TIME-VARYING WIRELESS NETWORKS Michael J. Neely, Eytan Modiano and Charles E.Rohrs Presented by Ruogu Li Department.

Stochastic Network Optimization with Non-Convex Utilities and Costs Michael J. Neely University of Southern California

Intelligent Packet Dropping for Optimal Energy-Delay Tradeoffs for Wireless Michael J. Neely University of Southern California

Dynamic Product Assembly and Inventory Control for Maximum Profit Michael J. Neely, Longbo Huang (University of Southern California) Proc. IEEE Conf. on.

Dynamic Index Coding Broadcast Station N N Michael J. Neely, Arash Saber Tehrani, Zhen Zhang University of Southern California Paper available.

Efficient Algorithms for Renewable Energy Allocation to Delay Tolerant Consumers Michael J. Neely, Arash Saber Tehrani, Alexandros G. Dimakis University.

Utility Optimization for Dynamic Peer-to-Peer Networks with Tit-for-Tat Constraints Michael J. Neely, Leana Golubchik University of Southern California.

Stock Market Trading Via Stochastic Network Optimization Michael J. Neely (University of Southern California) Proc. IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control.

Delay-Based Network Utility Maximization Michael J. Neely University of Southern California IEEE INFOCOM, San Diego, March.

Dynamic Optimization and Learning for Renewal Systems Michael J. Neely, University of Southern California Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and.

Dynamic Index Coding User set N Packet set P Broadcast Station N N p p p Michael J. Neely, Arash Saber Tehrani, Zhen Zhang University.

Dynamic Optimization and Learning for Renewal Systems -- With applications to Wireless Networks and Peer-to-Peer Networks Michael J. Neely, University.

Max Weight Learning Algorithms with Application to Scheduling in Unknown Environments Michael J. Neely University of Southern California

Dynamic Data Compression for Wireless Transmission over a Fading Channel Michael J. Neely University of Southern California CISS 2008 *Sponsored in part.

*Sponsored in part by the DARPA IT-MANET Program, NSF OCE Opportunistic Scheduling with Reliability Guarantees in Cognitive Radio Networks Rahul.

Multi-Hop Networking with Hard Delay Constraints Michael J. Neely, University of Southern California DARPA IT-MANET Presentation, January 2011 PDF of paper.

Cross Layer Adaptive Control for Wireless Mesh Networks (and a theory of instantaneous capacity regions) Michael J. Neely, Rahul Urgaonkar University of.

A Fair Scheduling Policy for Wireless Channels with Intermittent Connectivity Saswati Sarkar Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering University.

1 40 th Annual CISS 2006 Conference on Information Sciences and Systems Some Optimization Trade-offs in Wireless Network Coding Yalin E. Sagduyu Anthony.

Mobile Ad hoc Networks COE 549 Delay and Capacity Tradeoffs II Tarek Sheltami KFUPM CCSE COE 8/6/20151.

Optimal Energy and Delay Tradeoffs for Multi-User Wireless Downlinks Michael J. Neely University of Southern California

A Lyapunov Optimization Approach to Repeated Stochastic Games Michael J. Neely University of Southern California Proc.

Resource Allocation for E-healthcare Applications

Fair Real-time Traffic Scheduling over Wireless Local Area Networks Insik Shin Joint work with M. Adamou, S. Khanna, I. Lee, and S. Zhou Dept. of Computer.

EE 685 presentation Distributed Cross-layer Algorithms for the Optimal Control of Multi-hop Wireless Networks By Atilla Eryılmaz, Asuman Özdağlar, Devavrat.

Optimal Backpressure Routing for Wireless Networks with Multi-Receiver Diversity Michael J. Neely University of Southern California

Delay Analysis for Maximal Scheduling in Wireless Networks with Bursty Traffic Michael J. Neely University of Southern California INFOCOM 2008, Phoenix,

By Avinash Sridrahan, Scott Moeller and Bhaskar Krishnamachari.

Michael J. Neely, University of Southern California CISS, Princeton University, March 2012 Wireless Peer-to-Peer Scheduling.

On Optimizing the Backoff Interval for Random Access Scheme Zygmunt J. Hass and Jing Deng IEEE Transactions on Communications, Dec 2003.

1 A Simple Asymptotically Optimal Energy Allocation and Routing Scheme in Rechargeable Sensor Networks Shengbo Chen, Prasun Sinha, Ness Shroff, Changhee.

Congestion Control in CSMA-Based Networks with Inconsistent Channel State V. Gambiroza and E. Knightly Rice Networks Group

Michael J. Neely, University of Southern California CISS, Princeton University, March 2012 Asynchronous Scheduling for.

Utility Maximization for Delay Constrained QoS in Wireless I-Hong Hou P.R. Kumar University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 1 /23.

Converge-Cast: On the Capacity and Delay Tradeoffs Xinbing Wang Luoyi Fu Xiaohua Tian Qiuyu Peng Xiaoying Gan Hui Yu Jing Liu Department of Electronic.

Stochastic Optimal Networking: Energy, Delay, Fairness Michael J. Neely University of Southern California

Finite-Horizon Energy Allocation and Routing Scheme in Rechargeable Sensor Networks Shengbo Chen, Prasun Sinha, Ness Shroff, Changhee Joo Electrical and.

Energy-Aware Wireless Scheduling with Near Optimal Backlog and Convergence Time Tradeoffs Michael J. Neely University of Southern California INFOCOM 2015,

Super-Fast Delay Tradeoffs for Utility Optimal Scheduling in Wireless Networks Michael J. Neely University of Southern California

EE 685 presentation Optimization Flow Control, I: Basic Algorithm and Convergence By Steven Low and David Lapsley.

ITMANET PI Meeting September 2009 ITMANET Nequ-IT Focus Talk (PI Neely): Reducing Delay in MANETS via Queue Engineering.

1 - CS7701 – Fall 2004 Review of: Detecting Network Intrusions via Sampling: A Game Theoretic Approach Paper by: – Murali Kodialam (Bell Labs) – T.V. Lakshman.

Information Theory for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (ITMANET): The FLoWS Project Competitive Scheduling in Wireless Networks with Correlated Channel State Ozan.

Fairness and Optimal Stochastic Control for Heterogeneous Networks Time-Varying Channels     U n (c) (t) R n (c) (t) n (c) sensor.

Order Optimal Delay for Opportunistic Scheduling In Multi-User Wireless Uplinks and Downlinks Michael J. Neely University of Southern California

A Perspective on Network Interference and Multiple Access Control Michael J. Neely University of Southern California May 2008 Capacity Region 

Stochastic Optimization for Markov Modulated Networks with Application to Delay Constrained Wireless Scheduling Michael J. Neely University of Southern.

Delay Analysis for Max Weight Opportunistic Scheduling in Wireless Systems Michael J. Neely --- University of Southern California

Energy Optimal Control for Time Varying Wireless Networks Michael J. Neely University of Southern California

Asynchronous Control for Coupled Markov Decision Systems Michael J. Neely University of Southern California Information Theory Workshop (ITW) Lausanne,

Communications and Networking Research Group Eytan Modiano Hybrid networks Slide 1 Eytan Modiano Massachusetts Institute of Technology Stochastic.

Online Fractional Programming for Markov Decision Systems

Layered Backpressure Scheduling for Delay Reduction in Ad Hoc Networks

Delay Efficient Wireless Networking

IEEE Student Paper Contest

energy requests a(t) renewable source s(t) non-renewable source x(t)

Throughput-Optimal Broadcast in Dynamic Wireless Networks

Utility Optimization with “Super-Fast”

How MAC interacts with Capacity of Ad-hoc Networks – Interference problem Capacity of Wireless Networks – Part Page 1.

Optimal Control for Generalized Network-Flow Problems

Presentation transcript:

Universal Scheduling for Networks with Arbitrary Traffic, Channels, and Mobility Michael J. Neely, University of Southern California Proc. IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control (CDC), Atlanta, GA, Dec PDF of paper at: of paper at: Sponsored in part by the NSF Career CCF , ARL Network Science Collaborative Tech. Alliance B B Primary PathAlternate Paths

A A B B D D C C A A B B D D C C Primary PathAlternate Paths Want to optimally react to unexpected events. Example 1: Failure at Node B

A A B B D D C C Primary Path Example 2: Opportunity via Mobility mobile node

A A B B D D C C Primary Path Example 2: Opportunity via Mobility mobile node

A A B B D D C C Primary Path Example 2: Opportunity via Mobility mobile node

A A B B D D C C Primary Path Example 2: Opportunity via Mobility mobile node

A A B B D D C C Primary Path Example 2: Opportunity via Mobility mobile node

A A B B D D C C Primary Path Example 2: Opportunity via Mobility mobile node

A A B B D D C C Primary Path Example 2: Opportunity via Mobility mobile node

A A B B D D C C Primary Path Example 2: Opportunity via Mobility mobile node

A A B B D D C C Primary Path Example 2: Opportunity via Mobility mobile node

A A B B D D C C Primary Path Example 2: Opportunity via Mobility mobile node

A A B B D D C C Primary Path Example 2: Opportunity via Mobility mobile node

A A B B D D C C Primary Path Example 2: Opportunity via Mobility mobile node

Assumptions and Main Questions: Assumptions: Arbitrary mobility, traffic, channels. Little or no probability models known in advance. Any sample path is possible (non-ergodic). Future is unknown. Questions: Can we design “universal” scheduling algorithms that work on general time-varying networks? Can we optimize without knowing the future?

Main Results: We use a backpressure/max-weight algorithm that does not know future. Define a “T-Slot Lookahead” Utility as that obtained by an “ideal” algorithm that has perfect knowledge of the future up to T slots. For any T, our algorithm can achieve utility that is arbitrarily close to the utility of the ideal T-slot Lookahead algorithm, with tradeoff in convergence time and queue backlog.

Problem Formulation: Timeslotted system, slots t = {0, 1, 2, …}. N network nodes (possibly mobile). M Data Flows (each with source-destination). No pre-specified routes (we learn them).

Problem Formulation: Timeslotted system, slots t = {0, 1, 2, …}. N network nodes (possibly mobile). M Data Flows (each with source-destination). No pre-specified routes (we learn them) Nodes: N = 8

Problem Formulation: Timeslotted system, slots t = {0, 1, 2, …}. N network nodes (possibly mobile). M Data Flows (each with source-destination). No pre-specified routes (we learn them) Nodes: N = 8 Flows: M = 3

Problem Formulation: Timeslotted system, slots t = {0, 1, 2, …}. N network nodes (possibly mobile). M Data Flows (each with source-destination). No pre-specified routes (we learn them) Nodes: N = 8 Flows: M = 3 Flow 1: 1  3

Problem Formulation: Timeslotted system, slots t = {0, 1, 2, …}. N network nodes (possibly mobile). M Data Flows (each with source-destination). No pre-specified routes (we learn them) Nodes: N = 8 Flows: M = 3 Flow 1: 1  3 Flow 2: 7  3

Problem Formulation: Timeslotted system, slots t = {0, 1, 2, …}. N network nodes (possibly mobile). M Data Flows (each with source-destination). No pre-specified routes (we learn them) Nodes: N = 8 Flows: M = 3 Flow 1: 1  3 Flow 2: 7  3 Flow 3: 5  6

Problem Formulation: Timeslotted system, slots t = {0, 1, 2, …}. N network nodes (possibly mobile). M Data Flows (each with source-destination). No pre-specified routes (we learn them) Nodes: N = 8 Flows: M = 3 Flow 1: 1  3 Flow 2: 7  3 Flow 3: 5  6

Network Queueing: ab a Each node keeps queues for each separate commodity (“commodity” = “destination”). For commodity c (say, green commodity): Q a (c) (t+1) = Q a (c) (t) – Transmit out + Endogenous Arrivals + Exogenous Arrivals

A(t) = (A 1 (t), …, A M (t)) = New Arrivals. X(t) = (X 1 (t), …, X M (t)) = Flow Control Decisions. S(t) = “Topology State” observed on slot t. (μ ij (c) (t)) = Transmission Decisions (in set Γ(S(t)) State Information and Control Decisions: Node i A m (t)

A(t) = (A 1 (t), …, A M (t)) = New Arrivals. X(t) = (X 1 (t), …, X M (t)) = Flow Control Decisions. S(t) = “Topology State” observed on slot t. (μ ij (c) (t)) = Transmission Decisions (in set Γ(S(t)) State Information and Control Decisions: Node i A m (t) X m (t) Drop m (t)

A(t) = (A 1 (t), …, A M (t)) = New Arrivals. X(t) = (X 1 (t), …, X M (t)) = Flow Control Decisions. S(t) = “Topology State” observed on slot t. (μ ij (c) (t)) = Transmission Decisions (in set Γ(S(t)) State Information and Control Decisions: Node i A m (t) X m (t) Drop m (t) Node j Node k S ij (t) S ik (t)

A(t) = (A 1 (t), …, A M (t)) = New Arrivals. X(t) = (X 1 (t), …, X M (t)) = Flow Control Decisions. S(t) = “Topology State” observed on slot t. (μ ij (c) (t)) = Transmission Decisions (in set Γ(S(t)) State Information and Control Decisions: A m (t) X m (t) Drop m (t) S ij (t) S ik (t)

φ m (x) = concave utility function for flow m Segment timeline into T-slot frames. φ opt [r] = optimal sum utility over frame r, assuming future is known in frame! Utility Maximization with T-Slot Lookahead: Frame 0 Frame 1 Frame 2 Value of φ opt [r] can be written as a non-linear program (assuming future A(t), S(t) known)…

Utility Maximization with T-Slot Lookahead: Frame r Value of φ opt [r] can be written as a non-linear program (assuming future A(t), S(t) known): Ω(t) = set of rates possible under S(t)

Analytical Approach: Lyapunov Function for queues: L(Q) = ∑ [Q i (c) ] 2 New sample path “T-slot” Lyapunov Drift: Δ T (t) = L(Q(t+T)) – L(Q(t)) Every slot “greedily” minimize drift-plus-penalty: Δ 1 (t) + V x Penalty(t), Penalty(t) = -φ(γ(t)) Results in a joint backpressure and flow control alg similar to those defined for ergodic systems in: [Neely, Modiano, Li -- INFOCOM 2005] [Georgiadis, Neely, Tassiulas -- F&T 2006]

Performance Result: Theorem: For any R>0, T>0: (ii) Worst Case Queue Backlog = O(V). B, C are known constants. V = “knob” to turn to affect the tradeoff R = Running Time (number of T-slot frames) V RT (i) “Fudge Factor” = BT + CV O(1/V), O(V) utility-backlog tradeoff when time horizon R  infinity Achieved Utility over RT slots ≥ (1/R) ∑ r=0 φ opt [r] – “ Fudge Factor ” R-1

Example Mobile Network: Five Mobility Groups: 10 nodes Group 1 (upper left) 10 nodes Group 2 (upper right) 10 nodes Group 3 (lower right) 10 nodes Group 4 (lower left) 1 node Group 5 Group 1 nodes: Random Walk on Upper Left Region S1 S2 D1

Example Mobile Network: Five Mobility Groups: 10 nodes Group 1 (upper left) 10 nodes Group 2 (upper right) 10 nodes Group 3 (lower right) 10 nodes Group 4 (lower left) 1 node Group 5 Group 2 nodes: Random Walk on Upper Right Region S1 S2 D1

Example Mobile Network: Five Mobility Groups: 10 nodes Group 1 (upper left) 10 nodes Group 2 (upper right) 10 nodes Group 3 (lower right) 10 nodes Group 4 (lower left) 1 node Group 5 Group 3 nodes: Random Walk on Lower Right Region S1 S2 D1

Example Mobile Network: Five Mobility Groups: 10 nodes Group 1 (upper left) 10 nodes Group 2 (upper right) 10 nodes Group 3 (lower right) 10 nodes Group 4 (lower left) 1 node Group 5 Group 4 nodes: Random Walk on Lower Left Region S1 S2 D1

Example Mobile Network: S1 S2 D1 Five Mobility Groups: 10 nodes Group 1 (upper left) 10 nodes Group 2 (upper right) 10 nodes Group 3 (lower right) 10 nodes Group 4 (lower left) 1 node Group 5 Group 5 node: Periodically cycles about the clockwise orbit

Social Contacts: Source 1: S1  D1 (constant rate = 0.07 packets/slot) Source 2: S2  S1 (for first half of simulation) S2  D1 (for second half of simulation) Goal: Maximize Throughput of Source 2 subject to stability Use V=10, so guarantee no more that 11 source 2 packets in any queue! S1 S2 D1 Backlog Bound for D1 in a sample RED node Backlog Bound for S1 in a sample RED node Example Mobile Network: Sim. 1– Change Social Contacts

Social Contacts: Source 1: S1  D1 (constant rate = 0.07 packets/slot) Source 2: S2  S1 (for first half of simulation) S2  D1 (for second half of simulation) Goal: Maximize Throughput of Source 2 subject to stability Use V=10, so guarantee no more that 11 source 2 packets in any queue! S1 S2 D1 Example Mobile Network: Sim. 1– Change Social Contacts Moving Average thruput:S2  D1 Moving Average thruput:S2  S1

S1 S2 D1 Example Mobile Network: Sim. 1– Change Social Contacts Moving Average thruput:S2  D1 Moving Average thruput:S2  S1 Overall Performance is Seamless: Backlog no more than 11 packets in any queue for Source 1 data Backlog no more than 15 packets in any queue for Source 2 data Overall Thruput of Source 2 is maintained at near-optimal over the change, even though the routes must fundamentally change!

S1 S2 D1 Example Mobile Network: Sim. 2– Intermittent Jamming Social Contacts: Source 1: S1  D1 (constant rate = 0.07 packets/slot) Source 2: S2  S1 (Goal to maximize its throughput) Intermittent Interference during 2 intervals of the simulation That completely cut interaction between the groups 1-4. Can only use the cyclic mobile node at these times! Max Thruput of Source 2 during interference ~= Time JAM!

S1 S2 D1 Example Mobile Network: Sim. 2– Intermittent Jamming Social Contacts: Source 1: S1  D1 (constant rate = 0.07 packets/slot) Source 2: S2  S1 (Goal to maximize its throughput) Intermittent Interference during 2 intervals of the simulation That completely cut interaction between the groups 1-4. Can only use the cyclic mobile node at these times! Max Thruput of Source 2 during interference ~= Time JAM!

S1 S2 D1 Conclusion Slide: Backlog Bound for D1 in a sample RED node Backlog Bound for S1 in a sample RED node Moving Average Thruput of Source 2 Overall Seamless Operation Throughput During Jamming goes down, but is close to optimal value of Fudge Factor = BT/V + CV/RT Worst Case Queue Backlog = O(V) Framework useful for stock market trading! ( 10:20am )