The Scheduler is Very Powerful in Competitive Analysis of Distributed List Accessing
Guardado en:
| 發表在: | arXiv.org (Jul 18, 2018), p. n/a |
|---|---|
| 主要作者: | |
| 其他作者: | , |
| 出版: |
Cornell University Library, arXiv.org
|
| 主題: | |
| 在線閱讀: | Citation/Abstract Full text outside of ProQuest |
| 標簽: |
沒有標簽, 成為第一個標記此記錄!
|
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nab a2200000uu 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 2092798963 | ||
| 003 | UK-CbPIL | ||
| 022 | |a 2331-8422 | ||
| 035 | |a 2092798963 | ||
| 045 | 0 | |b d20180718 | |
| 100 | 1 | |a Boyar, Joan | |
| 245 | 1 | |a The Scheduler is Very Powerful in Competitive Analysis of Distributed List Accessing | |
| 260 | |b Cornell University Library, arXiv.org |c Jul 18, 2018 | ||
| 513 | |a Working Paper | ||
| 520 | 3 | |a This work is a continuation of efforts to define and understand competitive analysis of algorithms in a distributed shared memory setting, which is surprisingly different from the classical online setting. In fact, in a distributed shared memory setting, we find a counter-example to the theorem concerning classical randomized online algorithms which shows that, if there is a \(c\)-competitive randomized algorithm against an adaptive offline adversary, then there is a \(c\)-competitive deterministic algorithm [Ben-David, Borodin, Karp, Tardos, Wigderson, 1994]. In a distributed setting, there is additional lack of knowledge concerning what the other processes have done. There is also additional power for the adversary, having control of the scheduler which decides when each process is allowed to take steps. We consider the list accessing problem, which is a benchmark problem for sequential online algorithms. In the distributed version of this problem, each process has its own finite sequence of requests to a shared list. The scheduler arises as a major issue in its competitive analysis. We introduce two different adversaries, which differ in how they are allowed to schedule processes, and use them to perform competitive analysis of distributed list accessing. We prove tight upper and lower bounds on combinatorial properties of merges of the request sequences, which we use in the analysis. Our analysis shows that the effects of the adversarial scheduler can be quite significant, dominating the usual quality loss due to lack of information about the future. | |
| 653 | |a Algorithms | ||
| 653 | |a Distributed shared memory | ||
| 653 | |a Competition | ||
| 653 | |a Lower bounds | ||
| 653 | |a Randomization | ||
| 653 | |a Combinatorial analysis | ||
| 653 | |a Distributed memory | ||
| 653 | |a Schedules | ||
| 653 | |a Adaptive algorithms | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Faith, Ellen | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Larsen, Kim S | |
| 773 | 0 | |t arXiv.org |g (Jul 18, 2018), p. n/a | |
| 786 | 0 | |d ProQuest |t Engineering Database | |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |3 Citation/Abstract |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/2092798963/abstract/embedded/L8HZQI7Z43R0LA5T?source=fedsrch |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |3 Full text outside of ProQuest |u http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06820 |