Journal of Combinatorial Optimization

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 165–175 | Cite as

Scheduling Packets with Values and Deadlines in Size-Bounded Buffers



Motivated by providing quality-of-service differentiated services in the Internet, we consider buffer management algorithms for network switches. We study a multi-buffer model. A network switch consists of multiple size-bounded buffers such that at any time, the number of packets residing in each individual buffer cannot exceed its capacity. Packets arrive at the network switch over time; they have values, deadlines, and designated buffers. In each time step, at most one pending packet is allowed to be sent and this packet can be from any buffer. The objective is to maximize the total value of the packets sent by their respective deadlines. A 9.82-competitive online algorithm (Azar and Levy in Lect Notes Comput Sci 4059:5–16 2006) and a 4.73-competitive online algorithm (Li in Lect Notes Comput Sci 5564:265–278, 2009) have been provided for this model, but no offline algorithms have yet been described. In this paper, we study the offline setting of the multi-buffer model. Our contributions include a few optimal offline algorithms for some variants of the model. Each variant has its unique and interesting algorithmic feature.


Buffer management algorithm Packet scheduling algorithm Multi-buffer model Bounded-buffer model 


  1. Aiello W, Mansour Y, Rajagopolan S, Rosen A (2005) Competitive queue policies for differentiated services. J Algorithms 55(2):113–141 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azar Y, Levy N (2006) Multiplexing packets with arbitrary deadlines in bounded buffers. Lect Notes Comput Sci 4059:5–16 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chrobak M, Jawor W, Sgall J, Tichý T (2007) Improved online algorithms for buffer management in QoS switches. ACM Trans Algorithms 3(4):50, MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cormen TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL, Stein C (2009) Introduction to Algorithms, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Englert M, Westermann M (2007) Considering suppressed packets improves buffer management in QoS switches. In: Proceedings of the 18th annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (SODA), pp 209–218 Google Scholar
  6. Fung SPY (2010) Bounded delay packet scheduling in a bounded buffer. Oper Res Lett 38(5):396–398 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hajek B (2001) On the competitiveness of online scheduling of unit-length packets with hard deadlines in slotted time. In: Proceedings of the 35th annual conference on information sciences and systems (CISS), pp 434–438 Google Scholar
  8. Kesselman A, Lotker Z, Mansour Y, Patt-Shamir B, Schieber B, Sviridenko M (2004) Buffer overflow management in QoS switches. SIAM J Comput 33(3):563–583 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Li F (2009) Competitive scheduling of packets with hard deadlines in a finite capacity queue. In: Proceedings of the 28th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), pp 1062–1070 Google Scholar
  10. Li F (2009) Improved online algorithms for multiplexing weighted packets in bounded buffers. Lect Notes Comput Sci 5564:265–278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Li F, Sethuraman J, Stein C (2005) An optimal online algorithm for packet scheduling with agreeable deadlines. In: Proceedings of the 16th annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (SODA), pp 801–802 Google Scholar
  12. Li F, Sethuraman J, Stein C (2007) Better online buffer management. In: Proceedings of the 18th annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (SODA), pp 199–208 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations