International Journal of Wireless Communications and Networking 3(1), 2011, pp.

39-44

DELAY ANALYSIS OF WIRELESS NETWORK USING MWM

SCHEDULING POLICY
Kiruba, J. and V.Thiruppathy Kesavan
Dept. of CSE, Kalasalingam University, Krishnankoil, India, E-mail: jkiruba12@gmail.com

Abstract: The paper proposes the solution to the wireless networks where the delay analysis of wireless
networks with general interference constraints on the set of links that can be served simultaneously at any
given time systems has been limited to asymptotic behavior in the heavy traffic regime and order results.
The single-hop traffic allows for simultaneous transmissions as long as they satisfy the underlying interference
constraint which is proved by finding a lower bound on the delay performance of any scheduling scheme
for this system. The paper aims at developing an estimate for the expected delay of wireless networks with
mutually independent arrival streams operating under the well-known maximum weighted matching
(MWM) scheduling policy. The simulation results shows that the delay performance of the MWM policy is
often close to the lower bound, which means that it is not only throughput optimal, but also provides excellent
delay performance.
Keywords: Maximum Weighted Scheduling, lower bound, upper bound.

I. INTRODUCTION including datagrams and virtual circuits.

The important aspect of scheduling wireless data
in systems such as 802.16 (WIMAX) problems is that
a scheduler knows the channel rates across all users
and all carriers whenever a scheduling decision is
made. Hence there is no need to treat each carrier
in complete isolation. This gives a potential for
enhancing performance by allocating multiple
carriers simultaneously. In a situation where finite
queues are fed by a data arrival process, the
MaxWeight algorithm can be used for the single-
carrier setting to accommodate a number of natural
optimization problems in the multi-carrier setting[1].
When arrivals are modulated by independent finite
state Markov chains, the maximal scheduling
algorithm achieves average delay that grows at
most logarithmically in the largest number of
interferers at any link. When each Markov process
has at most two states (such as bursty ON/OFF
sources), average delay is independent of the
number of nodes and links in the network, and
hence is order-optimal [2].
A model that captures the cross-layer
interaction from the physical to transport layer in
wireless network architectures including cellular,
ad-hoc and sensor networks as well as hybrid
wireless-wireline allows for arbitrary network
topologies as well as traffic forwarding modes,
Furthermore the time varying nature of a wireless
network, due either to fading channels or to
changing connectivity due to mobility, is adequately
captured in the model to allow for state dependent
network control policies [3].
The scheduling algorithms that do not consider
queue backlog must incur average delay that grows
at least linearly with N. A dynamic queue-length
aware algorithm maximizes throughput and
achieves an average delay that is independent of
N [4]. This interference between links significantly
complicates the scheduling component in wireless
systems. This is especially problematic in multi-hop
wireless networks, where the number of nodes can
be quite large and one cannot assume the presence
of a central authority. The extent of the interference
varies across networks as it is physical layer
dependent, and with it varies the complexity of
scheduling [5].
A class of approximation algorithms to MWM
called 1-APRX which always obtain a schedule
whose weight W differs from the weight of MWM
schedule W! by at most f(W!), where f(.) is a sub-
linear function is presented. This difference in
weight is referred to as “approximation distance”
of algorithm from MWM. Any 1-APRX algorithm
is stable, that is, it delivers upto 100% of
40 International Journal of Wireless Communications and Networking
throughput under any admissible Bernoulli i.i.d.
input traffic [6].
The total network throughput of the queue-
length-based policy is no less than that of the greedy
policy for all N and is strictly larger than the
throughput of the greedy policy for large N. Further,
given an upper bound on the delay violation
probability, the throughput of the queue-length-
based policy is an increasing function of N while the
throughput of the greedy policy eventually decreases
with increasing N and goes to zero. Given an upper
bound on the queue overflow probability, the
throughput of the queue-length-based policy is a
strictly increasing function of N while the throughput
of the greedy policy eventually goes to a constant [7].
Using ideas from the Lyapunov function
approach in control theory, this technique maps the
complex multi-dimensional calculus of variations
problem to a one-dimensional calculus of variations
problem, and the latter is often much easier to solve.
This technique can potentially be used to study the
delay-performance of a large class of wireless
scheduling algorithms [8]. When the overflow metric
is appropriately modified, the minimum-cost-to-
overflow under the α-algorithm can be achieved by
a simple linear path, and it can be written as the
solution of a vector-optimization problem [9].
The capacity (service rate) of the channel varies
randomly with time and asynchronously for
different users [10]. Packets randomly enter the
system at each node and wait in output queues to
be transmitted through the network to their
destinations. A joint routing and power allocation
policy is developed which stabilizes the system and
provides bounded average delay guarantees
whenever the input rates are within this capacity
region. Such performance holds for general arrival
and channel state processes, even if these processes
are unknown to the network controller [11]. An
optimization approach to flow control is to
maximize the aggregate source utility over their
transmission rates [12].
In Quasi Unit Disk Graphs, flooding is an
asymptotically message-optimal routing technique
which provide a geometric routing algorithm being
more efficient above all in dense networks, and
classic geometric routing is possible with the same
performance guarantees as for Unit Disk Graphs if
d ≥1/√2 [13].
The rate control in a multi-hop random access
network requires joint optimization at both the
transport layer and the link layer due to the fact
that the attainable throughput on each link in the
network is ‘elastic’ and is typically a non-convex
and non-separable function of the transmission
attempt rates. Two cross-layer algorithms, a dual
based algorithm and a primal based algorithm, are
proposed to solve the rate control problem in a
multi-hop random access network. Both algorithms
can be implemented in a distributed manner, and
work at the link layer to adjust link attempt
probabilities and at the transport layer to adjust
session rates [14]. The performance of cross-layer
congestion control will be impacted if the network
can only use an imperfect and potentially
distributed scheduling component that is easier to
implement [15].
Internet routers frequently use a crossbar switch
to interconnect line cards. The crossbar switch is
scheduled using an algorithm that picks a new
crossbar configuration every cycle. Several
scheduling algorithms have been shown to
guarantee 100% throughput under a variety of
traffic patterns. The first such algorithm was the
maximum weight matching (MWM) algorithm in
which the weight is the sum of the occupancies of
the queues. Alternative weight functions, such as
using the sum of the square of the occupancies can
be used which leads to stronger or weaker stability.
II. EXISTING SYSTEM
In a wireless system, many scheduling policies have
been studied at the MAC layer with the objective
of maximizing throughput. These schemes are often
called throughput-optimal scheduling schemes.
This paper derives the upper and lower bounds on
the expected delay, and also provides an accurate
estimate of the expected delay for a well-known and
extensively studied throughput-optimal scheme
called the maximum weighted matching (MWM).
To simplify the analysis, the traffic model is
restricted to single-hop traffic. Under the single-hop
traffic model, all packets transmitted on a link are
generated by an exogenous arrival process at the
source node. The design of scheduling policies
which stabilize the system even under single-hop
traffic is a challenging task.
Intuitively, the scheduler must schedule as
many links as possible in every time slot, such
schedulers are called maximal schedulers.
However, even with maximal scheduling, some of
the queue lengths may become unbounded. The
Delay Analysis of Wireless Network using MWM Scheduling Policy
reason is that if the scheduler does not use the queue
length information, some of the queues may grow
large, while others remain very small or become
empty. This, in turn, does not allow the scheduler
to schedule a large number of queues and leads to
instability. Thus, a throughput optimal policy like
MWM carefully uses the information of the queue
lengths while scheduling the links.
III. PROPOSED SYSTEM
The paper proposes that the behavior caused by
throughput-efficient schedulers significantly
complicates the delay analysis of these systems,
because the service process of each link is governed
not only by the interference constraints, but also by
its queue length. For example, in a wireless network
operating under a throughput optimal policy, such
as the MWM policy, the expected delay at a link
may be large even if the arrival rate is small. This is
because these policies try to schedule the longer
queues in the system or in other words, they prevent
the queues from becoming very large. This can be
thought of as a mechanism to balance the queue
lengths in the system.
The main contribution of this paper is two- fold.
First, a fundamental lower bound is developed
based on the expected queuing delay of a wireless
network regardless of the scheduling policy used.
Then, an upper bound based on the expected delay
of a throughput for the proposed optimal
scheduling policy called GMWM which is a
generalization of MWM is developed under a
single-hop traffic model. Secondly, an estimate for
the expected delay in a wireless network with
mutually independent arrival streams, under a
MWM type policy, given the load and the
interference constraints is developed. Further, the
estimate is shown to lie between the upper and
lower bounds. Through simulations it is shown that
for single-hop traffic and any given load within the
capacity region, the estimate is accurate.
This paper shows that the MWM type of policies
which were designed primarily for achieving
maximum throughput, indeed also have good delay
performance. This can be attributed to two reasons.
First, MWM schedules a maximal set of links in the
system. Second, it performs load balancing in the
system.
In this paper the impact of GMWM type of
scheduling policies on the expected queue lengths
and expected delay in the system is analyzed. It is
41
noted that the MWM policy achieves load balancing
without explicit knowledge of the arrival statistics,
simply by using the information of the backlogs and
thus achieves a delay performance comparable to
that of the GMWMopt.
A. Computation of Lower Bound
This paper proposes an algorithm to calculate a
lower bound on the delay of the system,
independent of the scheduling policy used. The
definition of the exclusive sets, of link in the system
is that only one of the queues in can be scheduled
at any given time slot. The notion of exclusive sets
is helpful for deriving fundamental lower bounds
on the expected delay of the system. The value of
the lower bound is incremented and the links in the
chosen exclusive set are removed from further
consideration. This process is repeated until every
link in the system has been used. Since each link
appears in exactly one exclusive set, the system-
wide lower bound on the expected queue length can
be obtained as the sum of the contribution of each
link toward the lower bound. Consider X be the set
of N number of Systems connected in the Network.
Step 1: Initially set a bound value to 0. This
bound value is used for storing the Lower bound
value in the extreme subset X1 from the set X.
Step 2: Take exclusive subset X1 from the set X,
which maximize the lower bound value.
Step 3: Calculate the bound value by adding the
bound and lower bound value of the exclusive
subset X1.
Step 4: Divide the entire number of system
connected in the network by the subset of the system.
Step 5: Repeat the steps 3, 4 and 5, until the X is
equal to null.
Step 6: Return the Bound value.
B. Minimization of Upper Bound
This paper analyses a class of generalized maximum
weighted matching policies, parameterized by
Weights. The MWM policy is a special case, where
all the weights are unity. We prove that GMWM
achieves 100% throughput using the Foster-
Lyapunov drift criteria for Countable Markov
chains. The Algorithm to minimize the upper bound
by computing the network utility maximization
using convex optimization techniques is stated
below. Let a be the set of prices and ç be a variable.
42 International Journal of Wireless Communications and Networking

Step 1: First initialize a to the power of η.

Step 2: Optimal value µ is calculated by using
the queue length value λ and the price of the set a.
Step 3: The sum of optimal value for each subset
from the entire set is calculated and the each subset
upper bound value is minimized.
Step 4: Increment the price value for calculating
the upper bound value for the entire network.
Step 5: Repeat the steps 3, 4 and 5, till the
optimal value.
Step 6: Return the boundary value.

C. Estimation of the Delay

This paper analyses the delay of the wireless
network when operated with a stationary Figure 1: Packet Delay under Uniform Traffic with Packet
randomized scheduler. The service process can be Size as 1 Cell
analyzed as follows. The scheduler is unaware of
the backlog and chooses to schedule link Under uniform traffic condition three cases are
independent of whether the queue is empty or not. considered.
In every slot, if the link is scheduled, exactly one Pattern 1: packet size is 1 cell.
packet is served, otherwise the packets in the queue Pattern 2: packet size is 10 cells.
wait for the next available slot. The following
Pattern 3: packet size is varied and the average
parameters must be defined for the system.
is 10 cells (Internet packet size distribution).
• Length of the queue at the beginning of time The average packet delay is considered for
slot. various schemes for different patterns in figure 1-3.
• Number of arrivals at link during the time Under non-uniform traffic condition two cases
slot. are considered.
• Random variable that is 1 if link is Pattern 1: Diagonal traffic, packet size is 1 cell.
scheduled and is 0 otherwise.
Pattern 2: Hotspot traffic, packet size is 1 cell.
• Average delay in the system.
The lower bound may not be achieved by any
policy because it may not be possible to schedule a
link in every exclusive set due to the interference
constraints. Therefore, we attempt to develop an
accurate estimate for the delay performance in this
section. The lower bound analysis suggests that
those exclusive sets that have a large must have
longer queues lengths. However, since a scheduling
policy like MWM also balances the queue lengths
in the system, the effect of congestion in a particular
exclusive set is distributed over the whole system.
Hence, instead of estimating the queue length at
each link, we estimate the contribution of each link
toward the aggregate expected queue length.

IV. SIMULATION RESULTS

The Simulation results are made by considering Figure 2: Packet Delay under Uniform Traffic with Packet
both the uniform and non-uniform traffic patterns. Size as 10 Cells
Delay Analysis of Wireless Network using MWM Scheduling Policy 43

Figure 5: Reassembly Delay under Uniform Traffic with

Packet Length Larger than 1 Cell
Figure 3: Packet Delay under Uniform Traffic with Variable
Packet Length and the Average Length being10 Table I
Cells Summary of Performance of Various Algorithms
Schemes Complexity Stable Packet Delay
Performance

HE-iSLIP O(logN) Yes Lowest when

packet size is
larger than 1 cell.
iSLIP O(logN) No Always higher
than HE-iSLIP.
DERAND O(logN) Yes Highest for all
traffic patterns.
SERENA O(N) Yes Lower than
HE-iSLIP only
under nonuniform
diagonal traffic.
MWM O(N3) Yes Lowest when
packet size is 1 cell.

Figure 4: Cell Delay under Uniform Traffic with Packet
Length Larger than 1 Cell
When Packet Length is Larger than 1 Cell, HE-
iSLIP have a lower packet delay than MWM. For
example, when packet length is 10 cells, the Cell
delay obtained is shown in Figure 4 and the
Reassembly delay is shown in Figure 5. It is
concluded that low cell delay and low reassembly
delay are needed for low packet delay.
The performance of various schemes in terms
of Complexity, stability and packet delay are
compared and shown in table 1.
V. CONCLUSION
The lower bound may not be achieved by any policy
because it may not be possible to schedule a link in
every exclusive set due to the interference
constraints. Therefore, we attempt to develop an
accurate estimate for the delay performance in this
section. The lower bound analysis suggests that
those exclusive sets that have a large must have
longer queues lengths. However, since a scheduling
policy like MWM also balances the queue lengths
in the system, the effect of congestion in a particular
exclusive set is distributed over the whole system.
Hence, instead of estimating the queue length at
each link, the contribution of each link toward the
aggregate expected queue length is estimated in this
paper.
44 International Journal of Wireless Communications and Networking
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank all the reviewers whose
comments have helped to bring this research paper.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Andrews and L. Zhang, “Scheduling algorithms
for multi-carrier wireless data systems,” in Proc.
MobiCom, 2007, pp. 3–14.
[2] M. J. Neely, “Delay analysis for maximal scheduling
in wireless networks with bursty traffic,” in Proc. of
IEEE INFOCOM, 2008, pp. 6–10.
[3] L. Georgiadis, M. J. Neely, and L. Tassiulas,
“Resource Allocation and Cross-Layer Control in
Wireless Networks, Foundations and Trends
inNetworking” New York: Nov, 2006, Vol. 1.
[4] M. J. Neely, “Order optimal delay for opportunistic
scheduling in multi-user wireless uplinks and
downlinks,” 44 th Annual Allerton Conf. on
Communication, Control, and Computing, Sep.
2006.
[5] G. Sharma, C. Joo, and N. B. Shroff, “Distributed
scheduling schemes for throughput guarantees in
wireless networks,” 44th Annual Allerton Conf. on
Communication, Control, and Computing, Sep.
2006.
[6] D. Shah and M. Kopikare, “Delay bounds for the
approximate maximum weight matching algorithm
for input queued switches,” in Proc. of IEEE
INFOCOM, 2002, Vol. 2, pp. 1024–1031.
[7] L. Ying, R. Srikant, A. Eryilmaz, and G. E. Dullerud,
“A large deviations analysis of scheduling in
wireless networks,” IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, Vol. 52, No. 11, pp. 5088–5098, 2006.
[8] X. Lin, “On characterizing the delay performance
of wireless scheduling algorithms,” 44th Annual
Allerton Conf. on Communication, Control, and
Computing, 2006.
[9] V. J. Venkataramanan and X. Lin, “Structural
properties of ldp for queue-length based wireless
scheduling algorithms,” 44th Annual Allerton Conf.
on Communication, Control, and Computing, Sep.
2006.
[10] S. Shakkottai, R. Srikant, and A. Stolyar, “Pathwise
optimality of theexponential scheduling rule for
wireless channels,” Advanced Applications of
Probability, Dec. 2004.
[11] M. J. Neely, E. Modiano, and C. E. Rohrs, “Dynamic
power allocation and routing for time varying
wireless networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected. Areas
in Communication, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 89–103, 2005.
[12] S. H. Low and D. E. Lapsley, “Optimization flow
control: Basic algorithm and convergence,” IEEE/
ACM Trans. on Networking, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 861–
874, 1999.
[13] F. Kuhn, R. Wattenhofer, and A. Zollinger, “Ad-hoc
networks beyond unit disk graphs,” in Proc. 1st
ACM Joint Workshop on Foundation on. Mobile
Computing (DIALM-POMC), San Diego, CA, Sep.
2003, pp. 69–78.
[14] X. Wang and K. Kar, “Cross-layer rate control for
end-to-end proportional fairness in wireless
networks with random access,” in Proc. MobiHoc,
2005, pp. 157–168.
[15] X. Lin and N. B. Shroff, “The impact of imperfect
scheduling on cross-layer congestion control in
wireless networks,” IEEE/ACM Trans. on
Networking, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 302–315, 2006.
[16] Keslassy and N. McKeown, “Analysis of scheduling
algorithms that provide 100% throughput in input-
queued switches,” presented at the 39th Annual
Allerton Conf. on Communication, Control, and
Computing, 2001.