Abstract

A variety of applications with different QoS requirements are supported simultaneously in the high-speed packet-switched networks, packet scheduling algorithms play a critical role in guaranteeing the performance of routing and switching devices. This study presents a simple, fair, efficient and easily implementary scheduling algorithm, called Successive Minimal-weight Round Robin (SMRR). In each round, SMRR provides the same service opportunity, which is equivalent to the minimal weight of the current round, for all active data flows. On the basis of the concept of Latency-Rate (LR) servers, we obtain the upper bound on the latency of SMRR and WRR (Weighted Round Robin) respectively and the results indicate that SMRR makes a significant improvement on the latency bound in comparison to WRR. We also discuss the fairness and implementation complexity of SMRR and the theoretical analysis shows that SMRR preserves the good implementation complexity of O (1) with respect to the number of flows and has better fairness than WRR.

Highlights

  • There are many kinds of services with different QoS requirements in Internet

  • Switches and routers want to schedule these traffics for supporting different service levels; the performances of routing-switching devices are tightly interrelated to the used packet scheduling algorithms

  • We present a new packet scheduling algorithm, termed Successive Minimal-weight Round Robin (SMRR), with better fairness and latency characteristic compared to Weighted Round Robin (WRR)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There are many kinds of services with different QoS requirements in Internet. Packets belonging to different traffic flows often share links in their respective paths towards their destinations. A primary round is defined as the process during which the data flows, included in Active Flow List at a time instant T1 (T1>0), are accessed by packet scheduling module. Assume that flow i becomes active at time instant τi, in order to determine the latency bound of SMRR, according to Lemma 3, we need to only consider time interval (τi, τi(k, v)) for all (k, v) in which flow i receives service.

Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.