Paper detail

Rejecting Jobs to Minimize Load and Maximum Flow-time

Online algorithms are usually analyzed using the notion of competitive ratio which compares the solution obtained by the algorithm to that obtained by an online adversary for the worst possible input sequence. Often this measure turns out to be too pessimistic, and one popular approach especially for scheduling problems has been that of "resource augmentation" which was first proposed by Kalyanasundaram and Pruhs. Although resource augmentation has been very successful in dealing with a variety of objective functions, there are problems for which even a (arbitrary) constant speedup cannot lead to a constant competitive algorithm. In this paper we propose a "rejection model" which requires no resource augmentation but which permits the online algorithm to not serve an epsilon-fraction of the requests. The problems considered in this paper are in the restricted assignment setting where each job can be assigned only to a subset of machines. For the load balancing problem where the objective is to minimize the maximum load on any machine, we give $O(\log^2 1/\eps)$-competitive algorithm which rejects at most an $\eps$-fraction of the jobs. For the problem of minimizing the maximum weighted flow-time, we give an $O(1/\eps^4)$-competitive algorithm which can reject at most an $\eps$-fraction of the jobs by weight. We also extend this result to a more general setting where the weights of a job for measuring its weighted flow-time and its contribution towards total allowed rejection weight are different. This is useful, for instance, when we consider the objective of minimizing the maximum stretch. We obtain an $O(1/\eps^6)$-competitive algorithm in this case. Our algorithms are immediate dispatch, though they may not be immediate reject. All these problems have very strong lower bounds in the speed augmentation model.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.