Proceedings of ICC/SUPERCOMM'94 - 1994 International Conference on Communications
DOI: 10.1109/icc.1994.368919
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of buffer allocation schemes in ATM switches: complete sharing, partial sharing, and dedicated allocation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Buffer management schemes can be categorized into three classes from resource management viewpoint, namely: Complete Buffer Partitioning (CBP), Complete Buffer Sharing (CBS) and Partial Buffer Sharing (PBS) [5]. From a queuing strategy viewpoint, buffer management can be categorized into time priority and space priority.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Buffer management schemes can be categorized into three classes from resource management viewpoint, namely: Complete Buffer Partitioning (CBP), Complete Buffer Sharing (CBS) and Partial Buffer Sharing (PBS) [5]. From a queuing strategy viewpoint, buffer management can be categorized into time priority and space priority.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Complete Buffer Partitioning (CBP) [5] is a buffer resource management policy that segments a given buffer space into multiple queues, according to the differentiated classes of traffic, each of which corresponds to a single class. Traffic belonging to one class cannot occupy the buffer space assigned to another class, resulting in discarded arriving packets even when the overall allocated buffer is not yet full.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tassiulas et al [6] present a study to determine an optimal method to reduce cell loss rate in an ATM network, especially for loss sensitive cells. Causey and Kim [7] compare the performance of three space priority schemes and report that while complete buffer sharing delivers the highest throughput and lowest loss rate for nonbursty traffic, it suffers from congestion and unfairness corresponding to bursty input traffic. While complete partitioning attempts to be fair, it is inefficient in utilizing the available buffer space.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Threshold-based Push-out and Probabilistic Push-out schemes [7] have been found to provide more flexibility in tuning the cell loss probability but their implementation seems to be complex while still having the restriction that the class with strict cell loss requirement is the one with the low cell delay requirement. Comparisons between various space-priority schemes are presented in [8][9][10]. It turns out that such schemes are fairly effective in inducing fairly different cell loss rates for the differentiated applications (differences of several orders of magnitude are achievable).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%