Optimal Power-Down Strategies

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Primal-Dual Approach to Online Optimization Problems.
Advertisements

Tight Bounds for Online Class- constrained Packing Hadas Shachnai Bell Labs and The Technion IIT Tami Tamir The Technion IIT.
ENERGY-EFFICIENT ALGORITHMS INTRODUCTION TO DETERMINISTIC ONLINE POWER-DOWN ALGORITHMS Len Matsuyama CS 695.
Lecturer: Moni Naor Algorithmic Game Theory Uri Feige Robi Krauthgamer Moni Naor Lecture 8: Regret Minimization.
How do you model the future?   Stochastic approach: The future can be modeled as a distribution over possible events.   Very successful in many contexts.
Online Algorithms Amrinder Arora Permalink:
Online Scheduling with Known Arrival Times Nicholas G Hall (Ohio State University) Marc E Posner (Ohio State University) Chris N Potts (University of Southampton)
Dynamic Wavelength Allocation in All-optical Ring Networks Ori Gerstel and Shay Kutten Proceedings of ICC'97.
Evaluation of Algorithms for the List Update Problem Suporn Pongnumkul R. Ravi Kedar Dhamdhere.
Dynamic Power Management for Systems with Multiple Power Saving States Sandy Irani, Sandeep Shukla, Rajesh Gupta.
Data Broadcast in Asymmetric Wireless Environments Nitin H. Vaidya Sohail Hameed.
1 Ecole Polytechnque, Nov 7, 2007 Scheduling Unit Jobs to Maximize Throughput Jobs:  all have processing time (length) = 1  release time r j  deadline.
2002/04/18Chin-Kai Wu, CS, NTHU1 Jitter Control in QoS Network Yishay Mansour and Boaz Patt-Shamir IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 9, NO. 4,
Online Algorithms Motivation and Definitions Paging Problem Competitive Analysis Online Load Balancing.
Online Oblivious Routing Nikhil Bansal, Avrim Blum, Shuchi Chawla & Adam Meyerson Carnegie Mellon University 6/7/2003.
The k-server Problem Study Group: Randomized Algorithm Presented by Ray Lam August 16, 2003.
Randomized Competitive Analysis for Two Server Problems Wolfgang Bein Kazuo Iwama Jun Kawahara.
Evaluation of Algorithms for the List Update Problem Suporn Pongnumkul R. Ravi Kedar Dhamdhere.
Priority Models Sashka Davis University of California, San Diego June 1, 2003.
Learning and Planning for POMDPs Eyal Even-Dar, Tel-Aviv University Sham Kakade, University of Pennsylvania Yishay Mansour, Tel-Aviv University.
1 Krakow, Jan. 9, 2008 Approximation via Doubling Marek Chrobak University of California, Riverside Joint work with Claire Kenyon-Mathieu.
Paging for Multi-Core Shared Caches Alejandro López-Ortiz, Alejandro Salinger ITCS, January 8 th, 2012.
1/24 Algorithms for Generalized Caching Nikhil Bansal IBM Research Niv Buchbinder Open Univ. Israel Seffi Naor Technion.
Approximation Algorithms for Stochastic Combinatorial Optimization Part I: Multistage problems Anupam Gupta Carnegie Mellon University.
Yossi Azar Tel Aviv University Joint work with Ilan Cohen Serving in the Dark 1.
Online Power Saving Strategies Sandy Irani Joint work with Rajesh Gupta, Sandeep Shukla, Dinesh Ramanathan.
1 Online algorithms Typically when we solve problems and design algorithms we assume that we know all the data a priori. However in many practical situations.
1 Tight Bounds for Delay-Sensitive Aggregation Yvonne Anne Oswald Stefan Schmid Roger Wattenhofer Distributed Computing Group LEA.
1 Wroclaw University, Sept 18, 2007 Approximation via Doubling Marek Chrobak University of California, Riverside Joint work with Claire Kenyon-Mathieu.
Jennifer Campbell November 30,  Problem Statement and Motivation  Analysis of previous work  Simple - competitive strategy  Near optimal deterministic.
A Optimal On-line Algorithm for k Servers on Trees Author : Marek Chrobak Lawrence L. Larmore 報告人:羅正偉.
Introduction to the k-Server Problem Marcel Birkner.
Non-Preemptive Buffer Management for Latency Sensitive Packets Moran Feldman Technion Seffi Naor Technion.
1 Online algorithms 叶德仕 2 Online & offline Traditional theoretical analysis is concerned with off-line problems where the complete.
1 Approximation Algorithms for Generalized Scheduling Problems Ravishankar Krishnaswamy Carnegie Mellon University joint work with Nikhil Bansal, Anupam.
11 -1 Chapter 12 On-Line Algorithms On-Line Algorithms On-line algorithms are used to solve on-line problems. The disk scheduling problem The requests.
Approximation Algorithms based on linear programming.
Example 2 You are traveling by a canoe down a river and there are n trading posts along the way. Before starting your journey, you are given for each 1
The impact on a business of higher interest rates
Rent, Lease or Buy: Randomized Algorithms for Multislope Ski Rental
Approximating Set Cover
Computing and Compressive Sensing in Wireless Sensor Networks
Approximation Algorithms
Greedy Method 6/22/2018 6:57 PM Presentation for use with the textbook, Algorithm Design and Applications, by M. T. Goodrich and R. Tamassia, Wiley, 2015.
Maximum Matching in the Online Batch-Arrival Model
Partial Products Algorithm for Multiplication
On Scheduling in Map-Reduce and Flow-Shops
Data Mining Lecture 11.
Chapter 6. Large Scale Optimization
Hidden Markov Models Part 2: Algorithms
Richard Anderson Autumn 2015 Lecture 8 – Greedy Algorithms II
A new and improved algorithm for online bin packing
Chapter 6. Large Scale Optimization
Flows and Networks Plan for today (lecture 6):
Greedy Algorithms: Homework Scheduling and Optimal Caching
Minimizing the Aggregate Movements for Interval Coverage
Multiple Sequence Alignment
Optimization Problems Online with Random Demands
Richard Anderson Winter 2019 Lecture 8 – Greedy Algorithms II
Bioinformatics Algorithms and Data Structures
Richard Anderson Autumn 2016 Lecture 8 – Greedy Algorithms II
the k-cut problem better approximate and exact algorithms
Clustering.
Flexible Assembly Systems
List Scheduling Given a list of jobs (each with a specified processing time), assign them to processors to minimize makespan (max load) In Graham’s notation:
IIS Progress Report 2016/01/18.
Chapter 6. Large Scale Optimization
An Optimal Lower Bound for Buffer Management in Multi-Queue Switches
Data Structures and Algorithms
Richard Anderson Autumn 2019 Lecture 8 – Greedy Algorithms II
Presentation transcript:

Optimal Power-Down Strategies Chaitanya Swamy Caltech John Augustine Sandy Irani University of California, Irvine

Dynamic Power Management Idle period Request i Request i+1 Machine/server serving jobs/requests in active state with high power consumption rate Idle period between requests length is apriori unknown During idle period can transition to low power state incur power-down cost Idle power management: Determine when to transition so as to minimize total power consumed

Active state s0 : power consumption rate = 1 Sleep state s1 : power consumption rate = 0 Transition cost = d0,1 = cost to power-down from s0 to s1 Idle period length = t (not known in advance) Decide when to transition from active state to sleep state. Simply a continuous version of the ski-rental problem. Want to try skiing but unsure of the number of ski trips Rent at cost $10/trip OR Buy paying $100 A(t), OPT(t): total power consumed when idle period length is t A 2d0,1 d0,1 OPT t Power consumed Suppose t is generated by a probability distribution. Expected power ratio (e.p.r.) of A = Et [A(t)] / Et [OPT(t)] Competitive ratio (c.r.) of A = maxt A(t)/OPT(t) = 2

DPM with multiple sleep states Set of states S = (s0, s1,…, sk) s0 : active state, rest are sleep states ri : power consumption rate of si r0 > r1 > … > rk di,j : cost of transitioning from si to sj Power-down strategy is a tuple (S,T) S : sequence of states of S starting at s0 T : transition time sequence for S starting at t = 0

Power consumed s0 s1 s2 s3 d0,3 d0,2 d0,1 t = idle period length

Follow-OPT Strategy d0,1 d1,2 d2,3 Power consumed s0 s1 s2 s3 OPT is lower envelop of lines d0,3 d0,2 d0,1 t = idle period length

Two Types of Bounds Global bound: what is the smallest c.r. (e.p.r.) r* such that every DPM instance has a power-down strategy of c.r. (or e.p.r.) at most r* ? Instance-wise bound: Given a DPM instance I, what is the best c.r. (or e.p.r.) r(I) for that instance? Clearly r* = maxinstances I r(I) Would like an algorithm that given instance I, computes strategy with c.r. (or e.p.r.) = r(I).

Related Work 2-state DPM – ski-rental problem Multi-state DPM Karlin, Manasse, Rudolph & Slater: global bound of 2 for c.r. Karlin, Manasse, McGeoch & Owicki: global bound of e/(e-1) for expected power ratio. easy to give instance-wise optimal strategies. Multi-state DPM Irani, Gupta & Shukla: global bounds for additive transition costs, di,k = di,j + dj,k for all i>j>k – called DPM-A (additive). Show that Follow-OPT has c.r. = 2, give strategy with expected power ratio = e/(e-1). Other extensions – capital investment problem (Azar et al.) can view as DPM where states “arrive” over time, but with more restrictive transition costs.

Our Results Give the first bounds for (general) multi-state DPM. Global bounds: give a simple algorithm that computes strategy with competitive ratio r* ≤ 5.83. Instance-wise bounds: Given instance I find strategy with c.r. r(I)+e in time O(k2log k.log(1/e)). Use this to show a lower bound of r* ≥ 2.45. find strategy with optimal expected power ratio for the instance.

Finding the Optimal Strategy DPM instance I is given. Want to find strategy with optimal competitive ratio for I. Decision procedure: given r, find a strategy with c.r. ≤ r or say that none exists. Need to determine a) state sequence, and b) transition times.

Claim: For any strategy A, c.r.(A) = maxt=transition time of A A(t)/OPT(t). Power consumed A OPT t = idle period length

Suppose A=(S,T) has c.r. ≤ r, and transitions to sÎS at time t1ÎT s.t. A(t) < r.OPT(t). Then, can find new transition times T' such that a) A' = (S,T') has c.r. ≤ r, b) A' transitions to s at time t' < t1. r.OPT t1 Power consumed A OPT t = idle period length

tA(s) = transition time of s in strategy A Strat(s) = set of (partial) strategies A ending at s such that c.r.(A) ≤ r in [0,tA(s)] E(s) = minA' ÎStrat(s) tA' (s) = early transition time of s Let A = strategy attaining above minimum. Power r.OPT tA(s) = E(s) A Properties of A: a) A(E(s)) = r.OPT(E(s)) b) All transitions before s are at early transition times – "states q before s, tA(q) = E(q) OPT t = idle period length

Dynamic Programming Compute E(s) values using dynamic programming. Suppose we know E(s') for all states s' < s. Then, E(s) = mins' before s (time when s' transitions to s). To calculate quantity in brackets, use that: – Transition to s' was at t' = E(s') with A(t') = r.OPT(t'), – Transition to s must be at time t s.t. A(t) = r.OPT(t). Finally, if E(s) is finite for state s with power consumption rate rS ≤ r.rk, then we have a strategy ending at s with c.r. ≤ r.

Global Bound May assume that there are no power-up costs and di,j ≤ d0,j. Scaling to ensure that d0,i / d0,i+1 ≤ c where c < 1. s0 Follow-OPT Strategy Power d2,3 s1 s2 d1,2 s3 d0,3 OPT d0,1 d0,2 Theorem: Get a 5.83 competitive ratio. d0,1 t = idle period length

Open Questions Randomized strategies: global or instance-wise bounds for randomized strategies. Better lower bounds.

Thank You.