Contention Resolution with Heterogeneous Job Sizes

Bender, Michael A.; Fineman, Jeremy T.; Gilbert, Seth

doi:10.1007/11841036_13

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other arrival models. When all the packets begin at the same time (known as the static case), efficient protocols for sharing a multiple-access channel are known [6,12,48]. In contrast, there has been work on adversarial queueing theory, with an examination of the worst-case performance in the multiple-access model [11,31,3].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contention Resolution with Constant Throughput and Log-Logstar Channel Accesses

Bender¹,

Kopelowitz²,

Pettie³

et al. 2018

SIAM J. Comput.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For decades, randomized exponential backoff has provided a critical algorithmic building block in situations where multiple devices seek access to a shared resource. Despite this history, the performance of standard exponential backoff is poor under worst-case scheduling of demands on the resource: (i) subconstant throughput can occur under plausible scenarios, and (ii) each of N devices requires Ω(log N ) access attempts before obtaining the resource. In this paper, we address these shortcomings by offering a new backoff protocol for a shared communication channel that guarantees expected constant throughput with only O(log(log * N )) channel accesses in expectation, even when packet arrivals are scheduled by an adversary. Central to this result are new algorithms for approximate counting and leader election with the same performance guarantees. ).1 Although it is usually fine to conflate the players with their associated packets, we find it useful to distinguish them. For example, in our protocols, players are obliged to do more than merely guarantee that their packet is sent.2 The notation log indicates the logarithm base 2.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contention Resolution with Constant Throughput and Log-Logstar Channel Accesses

Bender¹,

Kopelowitz²,

Pettie³

et al. 2018

SIAM J. Comput.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Examples of assumption A1 abound (for example [23], [24], [25], [16], [13], [12], [15]), although variations exist. A compelling alternative is the signal-to-noise-plus-interference (SINR) model [26], [27] which is less strict about failure in the event of simultaneous transmissions.…”

Section: A a Common Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Our Model for Contention Resolution Wrong?

Anderton

Young

2017

Proceedings of the 29th ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Randomized binary exponential backoff (BEB) is a popular algorithm for coordinating access to a shared channel. With an operational history exceeding four decades, BEB is currently an important component of several wireless standards.Despite this track record, prior theoretical results indicate that under bursty traffic (1) BEB yields poor makespan and (2) superior algorithms are possible. To date, the degree to which these findings manifest in practice has not been resolved.To address this issue, we examine one of the strongest cases against BEB: n packets that simultaneously begin contending for the wireless channel. Using Network Simulator 3, we compare against more recent algorithms that are inspired by BEB, but whose makespan guarantees are superior. Surprisingly, we discover that these newer algorithms significantly underperform.Through further investigation, we identify as the culprit a flawed but common abstraction regarding the cost of collisions. Our experimental results are complemented by analytical arguments that the number of collisions -and not solely makespan -is an important metric to optimize. We believe that these findings have implications for the design of contention-resolution algorithms.

show abstract

“…More recently, there has been work on adversarial queueing theory, looking at the worst-case performance of these protocols [1,2,5,6,15,16,22,25,28,53].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A common theme throughout these papers, however, is that dynamic arrivals are hard to cope with. When all the players begin at the same time, very efficient protocols are possible [2,5,6,21,22,28,29,53]. When players begin at different times, the problem is much harder.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contention resolution with log-logstar channel accesses

Bender

Kopelowitz

Pettie

et al. 2016

Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For decades, randomized exponential backoff has provided a critical algorithmic building block in situations where multiple devices seek access to a shared resource. Surprisingly, despite this history, the performance of standard backoff is poor under worst-case scheduling of demands on the resource: (i) subconstant throughput can occur under plausible scenarios, and (ii) each of N devices requires Ω(log N) access attempts before obtaining the resource. In this paper, we address these shortcomings by offering a new backoff protocol for a shared communications channel that guarantees expected constant throughput with only O(log(log * N)) access attempts in expectation. Central to this result are new algorithms for approximate counting and leader election with the same performance guarantees.

show abstract

Contention Resolution with Heterogeneous Job Sizes

Cited by 14 publications

References 18 publications

Contention Resolution with Constant Throughput and Log-Logstar Channel Accesses

Contention Resolution with Constant Throughput and Log-Logstar Channel Accesses

Is Our Model for Contention Resolution Wrong?

Contention resolution with log-logstar channel accesses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About