On the Stability of Compositions of Universally Stable, Greedy Contention-Resolution Protocols
A distinguishing feature of today’s large-scale platforms for distributed computation and communication, such as the Internet, is their heterogeneity, predominantly manifested by the fact that a wide variety of communication protocols are simultaneously running over different distributed hosts. A fundamental question that naturally poses itself concerns the preservation (or loss) of important correctness and performance properties of the individual protocols when they are composed in a large network. In this work, we specifically address stability properties of greedy, contention-resolution protocols operating over a packet-switched communication network.
— The composition of any two protocols among SIS, NTS and FTG is universally stable.
— The composition of LIS with any of SIS, NTS and FTG is not universally stable: we provide interesting combinatorial constructions of networks over which the composition is unstable when the adversary’s injection rate is at least 0.519.
— Through an involved combinatorial construction, we significantly improve the current state-of-the-art record for the adversary’s injection rate that implies instability for FIFO protocol to 0.749. Since 0.519 is significantly below 0.749, this last result suggests that the potential for instability incurred by the composition of two universally stable protocols may be worse than that of some single protocol that is not universally stable.
KeywordsInduction Hypothesis Injection Rate Induction Step Packet Arrival Instability Threshold
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.M. Andrews, A. Férnandez, A. Goel and L. Zhang, “Source Routing and Scheduling in Packet Networks,” Proceedings of the 42nd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 168–177, October 2002.Google Scholar
- 4.H. Chen and D.D. Yao, Fundamentals of Queueing Networks, Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
- 5.J. Diaz, D. Koukopoulos, S. Nikoletseas, M. Serna, P. Spirakis and D. Thilikos, “Stability and Non-Stability of the FIFO Protocol,” Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, pp. 48–52, July 2001.Google Scholar
- 6.A. Férnandez, E. Jiménez and V. Cholvi, “On the Interconnection of Causal Memory Systems,” Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 163–170, July 2000.Google Scholar
- 10.N. Lynch, Distributed Algorithms, Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.Google Scholar
- 11.J. Mitchell, Email Communication to I. Lee, April 2002.Google Scholar
- 12.P. Tsaparas, Stability in Adversarial Queueing Theory, M.Sc. Thesis. Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 1997.Google Scholar