Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16

AIMS 2013, Barcelona, Spain, June 26, 2013

Fair Allocation of Multiple Resources Using a Non-monetary Allocation Mechanism


Patrick Poullie, Burkhard Stiller, 1 Department of Informatics IFI, Communication Systems Group CSG, University of Zrich UZH {poullie,stiller}@ifi.uzh.ch

Motivation/Problem Proportionality Algorithm Outline Conclusions

2013 UZH, CSG@IFI

Slide 1 of 10

Motivation

Shared computing , e.g., (private) clouds or clusters, offer different resources to consumers
CPU, RAM, mass storage, bandwidth

If offered as predefined or at least static bundles


Drawback: Some resources of some consumers are idle Advantage: guaranteed resources

If offered as shared resources


Drawback: No resources are guaranteed, when too many consumers are active simultaneously Advantage: flexible allocation

Can both advantages be combined?


Slide 2 of 10

2013 UZH, CSG@IFI

Problem Statement

To design an allocation mechanism, that


Scales with the number of consumers and resources
Linear runtime designated

Needs minimal input information


Complete preference function may not be available

Does need no monetary compensation


Monetary compensation may not be possible or desired

Allows to receive equal share and allocates leftovers/unused resources in a fair manner

To define fair leftover allocation


Complicated for multiple resources with different demands Very different to scheduling

2013 UZH, CSG@IFI

Slide 3 of 10

Proportionality of Bundles

Bundle: Share of resources a consumer receives If resources are received beyond equal share other resources have to be released Greediness measures to which degree this is the case Equal greediness is fair

2013 UZH, CSG@IFI

Slide 4 of 10

Formal Definition

2013 UZH, CSG@IFI

Slide 5 of 10

Greediness Alignment Algorithm

Round-based, where each round each consumer demands a bundle


Consumers only receive bundle after the last round

Greediness is calculated and fed back to consumers who should consider it for demand in the next round After last round every consumer receives demanded bundle If resources are scarce, greediness is aligned: greedy consumers are trimmed stronger
Incentive to consider feedback for next round/demand Trimming to enforce fair leftover reallocation

2013 UZH, CSG@IFI

Slide 6 of 10

Trimming Example

1.5 X 2.5 X 6.5 X 5.5 X


0X

-2.5 -1.5 2.5 1.5


0

-0.5

0.5

6.5 XX 5.5 XX
0X
2013 UZH, CSG@IFI Slide 7 of 10

Formal Definition

2013 UZH, CSG@IFI

Slide 8 of 10

Conclusions and Future Work

Scalability
Computation of greediness is linear

Minimal input information


Only demands are submitted and adapted

No monetary compensation Equal share guarantee and fair leftover reallocation


Allows to receive equal share and aligns greediness

Future Work
Trimming algorithm will be defined to optimize runtime Game theory to evaluate incentive compatibility and efficiency of allocation

2013 UZH, CSG@IFI

Slide 9 of 10

Thank You, for Your Attention!


Questions? Comments?

2013 UZH, CSG@IFI

Slide 10 of 10

Related Work

A. Kumar et al Almost Budget-balanced Mechanisms for Allocation of Divisible Resources


allocation problem on the uplink multiple access channel Only one resource and involves biddings

R. Jain et al: An Efficient Nash-Implementation Mechanism for Divisible Resource Allocation


auctioning bundles of multiple divisible goods (links) Combined to path/ combination of multiple paths possible

S. Yang, B Hajek: VCG-Kelly Mechanisms for Allocation of Divisible Goods: Adapting VCG []
network operator aims to select an outcome that is efficient
Slide 11 of 10

2013 UZH, CSG@IFI

Related Work in Scheduling

Traffic Scheduling
Andreas Mder, Dirk Staehle An Analytical Model for BestEffort Traffic over the UMTS Enhanced Uplink Dimitrova et al. Analysis of packet scheduling for UMTS EUL - design decisions and performance evaluation Focus on: time component, interference, location Singe resource: Channel

Multi Processor Scheduling


Dan McNulty et al A Comparison of Scheduling Algorithms for Multiprocessors Focus on migrating task between processors Interchangeable resources (processors)

2013 UZH, CSG@IFI

Slide 12 of 10

Related Work in Economics

S. Brams. Mathematics and Democracy: p. 271 et seq.: Adjusted Winner


No resource dependcies

S. Brams et al. The Undercut Procedure: An Algorithm for the Envy-free Division of Indivisible Items
Two people constrained [TP, UC]

L. Schulman, V. Vazirani Allocation of Divisible Goods Under Lexicographic Preferences


efficiency, incentive compatibility, and fairness properties BUT lexicographic preference function

2013 UZH, CSG@IFI

Slide 13 of 10

Definition of Fairness

Not to be understood as envy freeness


Collides with other desirable criteria
Pareto efficiency

Calculation likely not scalable

Equality of defined greediness is considered fair


Every consumer releases of his equal share what he receives from others

Strategy proofness is also not always desirable


Guarantees Pareto efficiency but cripples welfare

Mechanisms not need to be perfect but comprehensible


Slide 14 of 10

2013 UZH, CSG@IFI

Greediness Alignment Algorithm Outline


Receive Demands

Return Greediness

Calculate Greediness

Random decision or based on greediness

Are resources scarce?

Yes

Trim bundles

No

Return bundles

2013 UZH, CSG@IFI

Slide 15 of 10

Business Policy Management

Algorithm allows to dynamically allocate resources and to make equal/fixed share guarantees
Higher resource utilization while compliment with SLAs

Comprehensible framework to introduce dynamic resource allocation to general terms and SLAs
Service description for fair use
Monitoring Managed Resource

Greediness
Other Metrics

Business Indicators Business Policies

Actions, e.g., Trimming

2013 UZH, CSG@IFI

Slide 16 of 10