Parallel Load Balancing on Constrained Client-Server Topologies
May 27, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· π ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Andrea Clementi, Emanuele Natale, Isabella Ziccardi
arXiv ID
2005.13583
Category
cs.DC: Distributed Computing
Citations
4
Venue
ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
We study parallel \emph{Load Balancing} protocols for a client-server distributed model defined as follows. There is a set $\sC$ of $n$ clients and a set $\sS$ of $n$ servers where each client has (at most) a constant number $d \geq 1$ of requests that must be assigned to some server. The client set and the server one are connected to each other via a fixed bipartite graph: the requests of client $v$ can only be sent to the servers in its neighborhood $N(v)$. The goal is to assign every client request so as to minimize the maximum load of the servers. In this setting, efficient parallel protocols are available only for dense topolgies. In particular, a simple symmetric, non-adaptive protocol achieving constant maximum load has been recently introduced by Becchetti et al \cite{BCNPT18} for regular dense bipartite graphs. The parallel completion time is $\bigO(\log n)$ and the overall work is $\bigO(n)$, w.h.p. Motivated by proximity constraints arising in some client-server systems, we devise a simple variant of Becchetti et al's protocol \cite{BCNPT18} and we analyse it over almost-regular bipartite graphs where nodes may have neighborhoods of small size. In detail, we prove that, w.h.p., this new version has a cost equivalent to that of Becchetti et al's protocol (in terms of maximum load, completion time, and work complexity, respectively) on every almost-regular bipartite graph with degree $Ξ©(\log^2n)$. Our analysis significantly departs from that in \cite{BCNPT18} for the original protocol and requires to cope with non-trivial stochastic-dependence issues on the random choices of the algorithmic process which are due to the worst-case, sparse topology of the underlying graph.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Distributed Computing
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Reproducing GW150914: the first observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
MXNet: A Flexible and Efficient Machine Learning Library for Heterogeneous Distributed Systems
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Adaptive Federated Learning in Resource Constrained Edge Computing Systems
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Edge Intelligence: Paving the Last Mile of Artificial Intelligence with Edge Computing
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
iFogSim: A Toolkit for Modeling and Simulation of Resource Management Techniques in Internet of Things, Edge and Fog Computing Environments
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted