Scheduling problems in master-slave model
|
|
- Prudence Taylor
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Ann Oper Res (2008) 159: DOI /s Scheduling problems in master-slave model Joseph Y.-T. Leung Hairong Zhao Published online: 1 December 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007 Abstract We consider scheduling problems in the master slave model, which was introduced by Sahni in The goal is to minimize the makespan and the total completion time. It has been shown that the problem of minimizing makespan is NP-hard. Sahni and Vairaktarakis developed some approximation algorithms to generate schedules whose makespan is at most constant times the optimal. In this paper, we show that the problem of minimizing total completion time is NP-hard in the strong sense. Then we develop algorithms to generate schedules whose total completion time and makespan are both bounded by some constants times their optimal values. Keywords Total completion time Makespan Approximation algorithms NP-hard Master slave model 1 Master-slave model and its applications 1.1 Master-slave model The master-slave model was introduced by Sahni in In this model, each job has to be processed sequentially in three stages. In the first stage, the preprocessing task runs on a master machine; in the second stage, the slave task runs on a dedicated slave machine; and in the last stage, the postprocessing task again runs on a master machine, possibly different from the master machine in the first stage. The preprocessing, slave and postprocessing tasks Research supported in part by the National Science Foundation through grant DMI J.Y.-T. Leung ( ) Department of Computer Science, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102, USA leung@oak.njit.edu H. Zhao Department of Mathematics, Computer Science, and Statistics, Purdue University Calumet, th Street, Hammond, IN , USA hairong@calumet.purdue.edu
2 216 Ann Oper Res (2008) 159: and their lengths of job i are denoted by a i, b i and c i, respectively. It is assumed that a i > 0, b i > 0andc i > 0. A job may have a release time r i 0, i.e., a i cannot start until r i. Without loss of generality, we may assume that min r j = 0. Unless stated otherwise, all jobs are assumed to have the same release time. There are two cases when arbitrary release time is present. The first case deals with offline problems, i.e., the release times and processing times of all jobs are known in advance. The second case deals with online problems, i.e., no information of a job i is given until it arrives at r i, and when it arrives, all parameters about job i are given. We use the quadruple (r i,a i,b i,c i ) to denote job i. For simplicity, if r i = 0, we use the triplet (a i,b i,c i ) to represent job i. Each machine is either a master machine or a slave machine. The master machines are used to run preprocessing and/or postprocessing tasks, and the slave machines are used to run slave tasks, one slave machine for each slave task. In a single-master system, there is a single master to execute all preprocessing tasks (a tasks) and postprocessing tasks (c tasks). In a multi-master system, there are more than one master, each of which is capable of processing both a tasks and c tasks. Finally, in some systems, there are distinct preprocessing masters (preprocessors) and postprocessing masters (postprocessors), which are dedicated to process a tasks and c tasks, respectively. The master-slave model is closely related to the flow shop model. The system which has a single preprocessor and a single postprocessor can be seen as a two-machine flow shop with transfer lags. In this flow shop model, each job j has two operations: the first operation is scheduled on the upstream machine and the second operation is scheduled on the downstream machine. The interval or time lag between the finish time of the first operation and the start time of the second operation must be exactly or at least l j.ifthel j s are large enough such that all of the first operations finish before the start of any second operation, then the flow shop problem is equivalent to the problem of scheduling on a single machine with time lags and two tasks per job, subject to the constraint that all of the first operations are scheduled first. The latter problem is a special case of the single-master master-slave scheduling model. When there are more than one preprocessing and postprocessing masters, the masterslave model can be seen as a two-stage hybrid flow shop with transfer lags. In this sense, the single master case can be regarded as a three-stage hybrid flow shop where the first and the last stage has a single machine and the second stage has n machines. Hybrid flow shop is often found in electronic manufacturing environment such as IC packaging and maketo-stock wafer manufacturing. In recent years, hybrid flow shop has received significant attention, see Buten and Shen (1973), Langston (1987), Sriskandarajah and Sethi (1989), Cheng and Sin (1990), Lee and Vairaktarakis (1994), Gupta and Tunc (1994), Guinet and Solomon (1996) and Allaoui and Artiba (2006). 1.2 Applications of master-slave model The master-slave model finds many applications in parallel computer scheduling and industrial settings such as semiconductor testing, machine scheduling, transportation maintenance, etc. Some of them are listed in the following. For more applications, see Sahni (1996), Sahni and Vairaktarakis (1996), Sahni and Vairaktarakis (2004) and Vairaktarakis (1997). Industrial applications of the master-slave paradigm include the case of consolidators that receive orders to manufacture quantities of various items. The actual manufacturing is done by a collection of slave agencies. In this example, the consolidator is the master machine and the slave agencies are the slave machines. The consolidator needs to assemble
3 Ann Oper Res (2008) 159: the raw material needed for each task, load the trucks that will deliver this material to the slave machines, and perform an inspection before the consignment leaves. All of these work belong to preprocessing task. The slave machines need to wait for the arrival of the raw material, inspect the received goods, perform the manufacture, load the goods onto the trucks for delivery, perform an inspection as the trucks are leaving. These activities together with the delay involved in getting the trucks to their destination (i.e., the consolidator) represent the slave work. When the finished goods arrive at the consolidator, they are inspected and inventoried. This represents the postprocessing. Several applications of the master-slave model are found in parallel computer scheduling. A common parallel programming paradigm involves the use of a main computational thread whose function is to prepare data then fork and initiate new child threads that do the computations on different processors. After the computation of a child thread, the main thread collects the computation results and performs some processing on the results. Here, each child thread can be seen as a job with three tasks: the thread initiation and data preparation is the preprocessing task, the computation is the slave task and the postprocessing of the results from the computation is the postprocessing task. It is easy to see that both of the above examples generalize to multi-master systems or distinct preprocessing and postprocessing master systems. 2 Scheduling problems in master-slave model 2.1 Definitions and notations Given a set of jobs in the master-slave system, a non-preemptive schedule is one that schedules each task without interruption. Note that in such a schedule, it is still possible that there is an interval between the finish time of a i and the start time of b i, or the finish time of b i and the start time of c i. However, without loss of generality, one can always assume that b i is scheduled immediately after a i completes. In a preemptive schedule, a job running on one machine may be interrupted for some time, and later resumed on possibly a different machine. A non-preemptive schedule S is order preserving if for any two jobs i and j such that a i completes before a j, c i must also complete before c j. A no-wait-in schedule is one such that each slave task must be scheduled immediately after the corresponding preprocessing task finishes and each postprocessing task must be scheduled immediately after the corresponding slave task finishes. In other words, once a job starts, it will not stop until it finishes. It is easy to see that a no-wait-in schedule must be non-preemptive. A canonical schedule on the single master system is one such that all the preprocessing tasks complete before any postprocessing tasks can start. (Note that the definition of canonical schedule is slightly different from the one given in Sahni 1996.) In the multi-master system, a canonical schedule is one that is canonical on each master. The completion (or finish) time of job i in a schedule S is the time when the postprocessing task c i finishes. The completion time of i in S is denoted by C i (S).IfS is clear from the context, C i, instead of C i (S), isused.themakespan of S is the earliest time when all the tasks have been completed. The makespan of S is denoted by C max (S), orc max if S is clear from the context. The total completion time of S, denoted by C(S), is the sum of completion times of all n jobs, i.e., C(S) = n C j (S). Makespan and total completion time are two common objectives to minimize. The problems of finding a schedule that minimizes the makespan and total completion time are referred to as the makespan (C max ) problem and total completion time ( C j ) problem, respectively. Corresponding to various constraints, we have order preserving makespan (or total
4 218 Ann Oper Res (2008) 159: completion time) problem, no-wait-in makespan (or total completion time) problem, canonical total completion time problem, etc. In all cases, a schedule that minimizes C max or C j is usually denoted by S, and the minimum makespan and the minimum total completion time are denoted by C max and C, respectively. In many cases, the problem of minimizing makespan or total completion time is NPhard, i.e. unless P = NP there is no polynomial time algorithms for these problems. So people turn to approximation algorithms for these problems. An α-approximation algorithm for makespan (or total completion time) is an algorithm that for any set of jobs generates a schedule S whose makespan (or total completion time) is at most α times the optimal makespan (or total completion time). It is an (α, β)-approximation algorithm if it is an α-approximation algorithm for makespan and at the same time a β-approximation algorithm for total completion time. For a schedule S, ifc max (S) αc max and C(S) βc, then S is said to be an (α, β)-schedule. It is easy to see that if all jobs have the same release time, one can always arrange a schedule to be canonical without increasing the makespan. Thus, in order to minimize the makespan, we only need to focus on canonical schedules. However, this is not true if we want to minimize C j. In fact, the ratio of the total completion time of the best canonical schedule versus that of the best non-canonical schedule can be arbitrarily large. Consider the example: (n 1) identical jobs (1,ɛ,1) and one job (n 2,ɛ,1),whereɛ is an arbitrary small positive number. The optimal canonical schedule has total completion time O(n 3 ), while the optimal non-canonical schedule has total completion time O(n 2 ). 2.2 Previous work Kern and Nawijn (1991) showed that the makespan problem is NP-hard in the ordinary sense. Sahni (1996) showed that both the no-wait-in makespan problem and the order preserving no-wait-in makespan problem are NP-hard in the ordinary sense. He gave an O(nlog n) algorithm that solves the order preserving makespan problem. For the general problem under the single-master systems, Sahni and Vairaktarakis (1996) developed an approximation algorithm with a worst-case bound of 3/2. For the multi-master systems, they gave approximation algorithms with worst-case bounds of 2. Further algorithms were given by Vairaktarakis (1997) when there are m 1 preprocessors and m 2 postprocessors. Let m = max{m 1,m 2 }. He gave approximation algorithms with a worst-case bound of 2 1/m for the makespan problems with no constraint, or with the constraints of order preserving. 2.3 Organization of paper We first present our new complexity results about the total completion time problem in Sect. 3. We show that the total completion time problem, with or without constraints, is NPhard in the strong sense. We then consider a special case of the problem in Sect. 4. Inthis section, we assume that (1) there is a single master, (2) for all i, 1 i n, r i = 0, a i = a and c i = c, wherea and c are constants; i.e. the jobs are different from each other only by their slave tasks, (3) no preemption is allowed, and (4) only canonical schedules are considered. Our result is that if a c and we are restricted to canonical and order preserving schedules, then in O(nlog n) time we can find an optimal schedule that minimizes the total completion time and makespan at the same time. Then we develop an approximation algorithm which generates schedules that not only approximates the minimum total completion time very well, but also provides a constant approximation for the minimum makespan. In Sects. 5 and 6 we consider general cases of the total completion time and makespan problem.
5 Ann Oper Res (2008) 159: In Sect. 5, we develop efficient approximation algorithms to generate preemptive schedules which approximate both the total completion time and the makespan at the same time within constant bounds in various settings. These are the first general results for these problems in the master-slave model. Then in Sect. 6, we show that one can convert those preemptive schedules into non-preemptive schedules with a slight degradation of the approximation ratios. Finally, we end this paper with some conclusion in Sect Complexity of total completion time problem Yu et al. (2004) showed that the problem F 2 l j,p ij = 1 C max is strongly NP-hard. In fact, they showed that the problem remains strongly NP-hard even with exact delays constraint. We can adapt their proof to show that the problem of minimizing total completion time (and makespan as well) with or without constraints in the single-master master-slave model is strongly NP-hard. Theorem 3.1 The problem of minimizing total completion time is strongly NP-hard, even if preemption is allowed and a i = c i = 1 for 1 i n. Furthermore, it remains strongly NP-hard even if we are restricted to canonical schedules, or no-wait-in schedules, or both canonical and no-wait-in schedules. As it turns out, the proof of the above theorem does not apply to order preserving scheduling problems. But by reducing from the 3-partition problem, we can show that the total completion time problem, with the no-wait-in and order preserving constraint, is NP-hard in the strong sense. Because of space limit, we only give the result. For detailed proof, please refer to Leung and Zhao (2005). Theorem 3.2 The problem of minimizing the order preserving and no-wait-in total completion time is strongly NP-hard even if a i = c i for 1 i n. 4 Optimal and approximation algorithms: Special cases The result from Kern and Nawijn (1991) andtheorem3.1 tell us that unless P = NP, there is no hope to find an optimal schedule for the total completion time problem, or makespan problem in general. In this section, we will consider special cases of these problems. We assume that (1) there is a single master, (2) for all jobs i, 1 i n, wehaver i = 0, a i = a and c i = c, wherea and c are some constants; i.e., the jobs are different from each other only by their slave tasks, (3) no preemption is allowed, (4) only canonical schedules are considered. As our complexity results show, even in this very special case, the makespan and the total completion time problems are still NP-hard. For this special case, we first show that if a c and we are restricted to order preserving schedules, then in O(nlog n) time one can find an optimal schedule that minimizes both the total completion time and the makespan. Then we show that the canonical schedule that schedules jobs in non-decreasing order of the slave tasks has total completion time only slighter larger than the minimum total completion time, and has makespan at most constant times the minimum makespan.
6 220 Ann Oper Res (2008) 159: Fig. 1 Illustration of the proof of Theorem 4.1, t i+1 t i b i b i+1. (Shaded area represents idle time) 4.1 Optimal canonical and order preserving schedules While the total completion time problem and makespan problem are strongly NP-hard in general, there is a special case that admits a polynomial time solution. Theorem 4.1 For the special case of a c, one can find a schedule that minimizes both the total completion time and the makespan among all canonical and order preserving schedules in O(nlog n) time. Proof Let S be the canonical and order preserving schedule that schedules jobs in nondecreasing order of b i s. Let S be an optimal canonical and order preserving schedule with respect to the total completion time. Suppose S is not the same as S. Then we show that we can convert S into S without increasing the total completion time, which means that S is also optimal with respect to total completion time. For convenience, suppose S schedulesthejobsintheorderof1,2,...,n.sinces is not the same as S, there must exist two adjacent jobs i and i + 1inS such that a i is scheduled before a i+1 but b i >b i+1. Because S is order preserving c i+1 must be scheduled after c i completes. We show that c i+1 must be scheduled immediately after c i finishes in S, i.e there is no idle time between c i and c i+1 in S.Lett i be the interval between the finishing time of a i and the starting time of c i.thenwemusthavet i b i. Furthermore, the interval between the time a i+1 finishes and the time c i finishes is t i+1 = t i + c a. By assumption a c, thus t i+1 t i b i b i+1. In other words, at the time c i finishes, b i+1 already finishes. Since S is an optimal schedule, c i+1 must be scheduled immediately without any delay. Now since t i b i b i+1 and t i+1 b i b i+1, if we interchange a i with a i+1 and c i with c i+1, and keep all other tasks unchanged, we still get a feasible schedule S with the same total completion time as S (see Fig. 1). This means that S is also optimal with respect to the total completion time. By repeatedly interchanging jobs, we will arrive at the schedule S. SinceS has the same completion time as S, S is also optimal with respect to the total completion time. Notice that when we do the interchanging above, we do not change the makespan either, so the same arguments show that scheduling jobs in non-decreasing order of b i s also generates an optimal schedule with respect to makespan. Note that if a>c, then the canonical schedule that schedules jobs in non-decreasing order of the processing times of the slave tasks is still order preserving but may not be optimal with respect to both the total completion time and the makespan. For makespan, Sahni and Vairaktarakis (1996) showed that in case of a j c j for every job j, scheduling jobs in nonincreasing order of b j s yields an optimal canonical and order preserving schedule. On the other hand, the complexity of the problem of finding an optimal canonical and order preserving schedule with respect to total completion time when a>cis not known at the present time. However, we will show in the next subsection that scheduling jobs in non-decreasing order of b j s gives a 5/4-approximation with respect to total completion time.
7 Ann Oper Res (2008) 159: Approximation algorithms: Special case In this subsection, we consider how to approximately solve the total completion time and makespan problems in the special case. Theorem 4.2 Let S be a schedule that schedules jobs in an arbitrary order. If a<c, then S is a (2, 2) schedule; if a = c, then S is a (2, 4/3) schedule; if a>c, then S is a (2, 3/2) schedule. Proof For makespan, Sahni and Vairaktarakis (1996) have shown that any canonical schedule is a 2-approximation for makespan. Leung and Zhao (2005) showed that if a c, then an arbitrary canonical schedule gives approximation for the total completion time, 1+ 2a c which is asymptotically 2 when a<cand 4/3 whena = c; andifa>c,thenanarbitrary canonical gives a c approximation which is asymptotically 3/2. Combining these two results concludes the proof. A better approximation ratio can be obtained by scheduling jobs in non-decreasing order of b i s. Theorem 4.3 Let S be a schedule that schedules jobs in non-decreasing order of b i s. If a<c, then S is a (3/2, 4/3); if a = c, then S is a (3/2, 7/6) schedule; if a c, then S is a (2, 5/4) schedule. 4+ 2c a Proof As we mentioned before, Sahni and Vairaktarakis (1996) showed that any canonical schedule is a 2-approximation for makespan. Furthermore, they showed that if a i c i for every i, then scheduling jobs in non-decreasing order of b i s generates a scheduled whose makespan is at most 3/2 times the optimal. For the total completion time, Leung andzhao(2005) showed that if a c, thens is a (1 + 1 )-approximation for total completion time, which is asymptotically 4/3 whena < cand 7/6 whena = c; andifa < c, then S is a ( a c )-approximation, which is asymptotically 5/4. Combining these two results concludes the proof. 5 Approximation algorithms: General cases In this and the next section, we consider general cases of makespan and total completion time problems. We will not have any assumption about the processing times, so a i, b i and c i can be any arbitrary positive number. A job i can also have a release time r i. We will not only consider canonical schedules, but non-canonical schedules too; not only single-master systems, but multi-master systems and distinct preprocessing and postprocessing master systems too. Again, we will focus on approximation algorithms. In this section, we design algorithms that generate preemptive schedules and analyze the performance of these algorithms. Then in the next section, we will show how to convert these preemptive schedules into non-preemptive schedules with a slight degradation in the quality of approximation.
8 222 Ann Oper Res (2008) 159: Main idea The Shortest-Processing-Time (SPT) rule, which always runs the job with the least processing time, and the Shortest-Remaining-Processing-Time (SRPT) rule (Schrage 1968; Smith 1976), which always runs the job with the least remaining processing time, are two wellknown algorithms for minimizing total completion time. Usually, the SPT rule is used to generate non-preemptive schedules, while the SRPT rule is used to generate preemptive schedules. Suppose each job consists of a single task. If all jobs are available at time 0, then the SPT rule is optimal for total completion time in the single-machine or multi-machine environment. If the release times are arbitrary, then the SRPT rule is optimal for a single machine and it is a 2-approximation (Phillips et al. 1998) in the multi-machine environment. We will adapt both rules for the problems in the master slave model. We use both rules to generate preemptive schedules. All these schedules are shown to have small total completion time and makespan as well. A scheduling decision is made when an a task or a c task completes so that a master machine becomes free, or when a new a task or a c task becomes available. At any such time instant, the SPT rule schedules, from the set of available tasks (including those that have been preempted but have not yet completed), the one with the smallest processing time. Depending on how one chooses from the set of available jobs, one can obtain the SPT a rule and the SPT c rule. Specifically, in the SPT a rule, preemption occurs only among the a tasks and the preemption is based on the length of a i.inthespt c rule, preemption occurs only among the c tasks and the preemption is based on the length of c i. On the other hand, the SRPT rule schedules, from the set of available tasks, the one with the smallest remaining processing time. Similarly, one can define the SRPT a rule and the SRPT c rule. Both the SPT rule and the SRPT rule may generate schedules with migration when there are multiple machines, i.e., after interrupted on one machine, a task is resumed on a different machine. Preemptive relaxation and linear programming relaxation are two important techniques for getting constant-factor approximations for total completion time of non-preemptive schedules (Phillips et al. 1998; Halletal.1997; Chakrabarti et al. 1996; Goemans 1997; Schulz and Skutella 1997). Most of these algorithms work by first constructing a relaxed solution, either a preemptive schedule or a linear programming relaxation. These relaxations are then used to obtain an ordering of the jobs, and the jobs are list scheduled (i.e., no unforced idle time) in this order. In this paper we will use the first approach. By applying the ideas of Phillips et al. (1998) and Chekuri et al. (2001) to the master slave models, we will show that the preemptive schedules generated above can be converted into non-preemptive schedules with certain degradation in the quality of approximation. 5.2 Single master systems For convenience, throughout this section, let A = n a j, B = n b j, C = n c j, R = n r j. In all cases we have the following trivial lower bound for C For makespan, we have C A + B + C + R. (1) Cmax 1 (A + C), m (2) where m 1 is the number of master machines in the system and Cmax r j + a j + b j + c j, 1 j n, (3) for any single master or multi-master systems.
9 Ann Oper Res (2008) 159: Algorithm Canonical-SPT c Schedule the a tasks in an arbitrary order without preemption. After all the a tasks finish, schedule the available c tasks by the SPT c rule. Theorem 5.1 Algorithm Canonical-SPT c generates a (2, 2) canonical preemptive schedule in O(nlog n) time when there is a single master and r i = 0 for all jobs i. Proof Since preemption among the c tasks can not increase the makespan, by Sahni and Vairaktarakis (1996), the schedule generated by Algorithm Canonical-SPT c has makespan at most two times the optimal. Let C aj denote the time a j completes. Then at time t j = max(a, (C aj + b j )), all the a tasks finish and the task c j is available to be scheduled. Since C aj A,wehavet j A + b j. According to the algorithm, if there is another available task c i that is running but hasn t finished at time t j and c i <c j,thenc j has to wait until c i finishes. Also, during the execution of c j, if there is another task c i <c j that becomes available, then c i preempts c j. In both cases, we say that c j is delayed by c i.letc j be the completion time of c j in the schedule generated by Algorithm Canonical-SPT c. Then, C j = t j + c j + c i (A + b j + c j ) + c i. c i delays c j c i <c j For canonical schedules, whether preemption is allowed or not, we have the following lower bound of minimum total completion time C na + c i c j c i, (4) which is based on the fact that a schedule that has no idle time and schedules the c tasks in non-decreasing order of their lengths must be an optimal schedule. Thus, the total completion time is C j ( A + b j + c j + c i <c j c i ) ( = na + c i c i <c j ) + (B + C) < 2C, where the last inequality comes from the lower bounds (4)and(1). Let S 1 ={i : a i c i } and S 2 ={i : a i >c i }. Suppose the jobs in S 1 are arranged in increasing order of the b s and the jobs in S 2 are arranged in decreasing order of the b s. In Sahni and Vairaktarakis (1996), it was shown that the canonical schedule in which the a tasks of S 1 are scheduled before the a tasks of S 2 has makespan at most 3/2 times the optimal schedule. If the a tasks are scheduled in this order in Algorithm Canonical-SPT c, then one still gets a 3/2-approximation for makespan, since preemption on the available c tasks will not increase the makespan. Corollary 5.1 There is an O(nlog n) time algorithm that generates a (3/2, 2) canonical preemptive schedule when there is a single master and r i = 0 for all i.
10 224 Ann Oper Res (2008) 159: Algorithm Non-canonical-SPT a+c For any two jobs, if (a j + c j )<(a i + c i ), then both a j and c j are said to have higher priority than a i and c i. At any time, if the master processor is free for assignment, assign the available task with the highest priority. If a new task becomes available and has higher priority than the currently running task, the new task preempts the currently running task. Theorem 5.2 Algorithm Non-canonical-SPT a+c generates a (2, 2) preemptive schedule for a single-master system. Furthermore, if the jobs have arbitrary release times, the schedule can be generated online. Proof To bound the makespan, we pick the last job j such that c j starts immediately after it becomes ready. Then the intervals I 1 =[r j,c aj ) and I 2 =[(C aj + b j ), C max ) must be both busy, and the total length I 1 + I 2 of these two intervals is at most n a j + n c j = A + C Cmax. Thus, C max = r j + I 1 +b j + I 2 (r j + b j ) + C max 2C max. Now we bound the total completion time of the schedule generated by Algorithm Noncanonical-SPT a+c. The schedules generated by Algorithm Non-canonical-SPT a+c are noncanonical, the a tasks and the c tasks can be scheduled alternatively. A lower bound on the C can be obtained by assuming all the b tasks have length 0: C a i +c i a j +c j (a i + c i ). (5) Let S be the schedule generated by Algorithm Non-canonical-SPT a+c.letc aj completion time of a j in S. Then, C aj = r j + a i + a i delays a j c i delays a j c i + a j be the and C j = C aj + b j + c j + a i + c i a i delays c j c i delays c j = r j + a i + c i + a j + b j + c j + a i + a i delays a j c i delays a j a i delays c j (a i + c i ) + (r j + a j + b j + c j ), a i +c i <a j +c j c i delays c j c i where the last inequality comes from the fact that the two sets of tasks delaying a j and c j are disjoint, and they all have higher priority than a j and c j. Thus, we can bound the total completion time
11 Ann Oper Res (2008) 159: C j (a i + c i ) + (r j + a j + b j + c j ) a i +c i <a j +c j (a i + c i ) + (R + A + B + C) by (5) and(1) a i +c i <a j +c j < 2C. To conclude the proof, note that Algorithm Non-canonical-SPT a+c schedules jobs in an online fashion. 5.3 Multi-master systems Algorithm Multi-Master-SPT a+c (1) Without loss of generality, we assume that the jobs are indexed in non-decreasing order of a j + c j.thatis,a j + c j a j+1 + c j+1 for 1 j n 1. We may also assume that n is a multiple of m. Otherwise, one can add dummy jobs with a i = b i = c i = 0. (2) Assign the jobs to the machines such that jobs 1, 2,..., m go to machines 1, 2,..., m, respectively; jobs m + 1, m + 2,..., 2m go to machines m, m 1,...,1,respectively;jobs2m + 1, 2m + 2,...,3m gotomachines1,2,...,m, respectively; and so on until all jobs are assigned. (3) Apply Algorithm Non-canonical-SPT a+c to each master machine to schedule the jobs assigned to it. Theorem 5.3 Algorithm Multi-Master-SPT a+c generates a (3, 2) offline preemptive schedule without migration for multi-master systems when jobs have arbitrary release times. Proof Let p = j scheduled on p (a j + c j ). By the pigeon hole principle, it is easy to see that min 1 p m p 1 m (a j + c j )<Cmax. For any two machines p and q, by the way the jobs are assigned to the machines p q max 1 k n (a k + c k ) min 1 k n (a k + c k ) max 1 k n (a k + c k )<C max. This means that for any machine p, p min 1 q m q + Cmax 2C max. First we bound the makespan. Suppose the job with the maximum completion time among all jobs is assigned to machine p. Letl be the last job on machine p so that c l is scheduled immediately after it is ready. Define C al as before. Then the machine p is busy during the intervals I 1 =[r l,c al ) and I 2 =[(C al + b l ), C max ). The total length of the two intervals is I 1 + I 2 p < 2Cmax. Therefore, the makespan is C max = r l + I 1 +b l + I 2 < 3C max. To consider the total completion time, we first give a lower bound. Without loss of generality, one may assume that n = mk for some integer k. For convenience, one can reindex the jobs assigned to each machine p in the form of (p, q) such that a (p,q) + c (p,q) a (p,q+1) + c (p,q+1).letb p = k q=1 b (p,q).
12 226 Ann Oper Res (2008) 159: A lower bound of the total completion time comes from the fact that Algorithm Multi- Master-SPT a+c is optimal if b (p,q) = 0 for every job (p, q) C m p=1 q=1 k (k q + 1)(a (p,q) + c (p,q) ) (6) Now fix a machine p. Using similar argument as in the proof of Theorem 5.2,wehave k k C (p,q) max r (p,q) + (k q + 1)(a (p,q) + c (p,q) ) + B p. 1 q k q=1 Thus, the total completion time is m k m k C (p,q) (k q + 1)(a (p,q) + c (p,q) ) + B p + max p=1 q=1 p=1 p=1 q=1 q=1 m k (k q + 1)(a (p,q) + c (p,q) ) + B + R < 2C. q=1 1 q k r (p,q) by (6)and(1) The schedules generated by Algorithm Multi-Master-SPT a+c are offline schedules. To obtain online schedules, one can apply Algorithm Non-canonical-SPT a+c to multi-master systems. We have the following theorem whose proof is omitted (Leung and Zha 2006). Theorem 5.4 Algorithm Non-canonical-SPT a+c generates a (3, 2) online preemptive schedule with migration on multi-master systems when jobs have arbitrary release times. 5.4 Distinct preprocessing and postprocessing master systems Algorithm SRPT a SPT c Schedule the available a tasks using the SRPT a rule on the preprocessing master. Schedule the available c tasks using the SPT c rule on the postprocessing master. In the following, we let m 1 and m 2 denote the numbers of preprocessing masters and postprocessing masters, respectively. Theorem 5.5 Algorithm SRPT a SPT c generates a (3, 2) online preemptive schedule when m 1 = m 2 = 1 and r j 0 for all j. Proof For the makespan, consider the last job l such that c l runs immediately when it is available at time C al + b l. There is no idle time in the interval I 1 =[r l,c al ) and the interval I 2 =[(C al + b l ), C max ). The length of each interval is at most Cmax. Therefore, the makespan is C max = r l + I 1 +b l + I 2 3Cmax.
13 Ann Oper Res (2008) 159: Now we consider the total completion time. Let Ca j be the time a j finishes in an optimal schedule. Then, C (Ca j + b j + c j ) = + B + C. Ca j Let C aj be the time a j finishes in the schedule obtained by Algorithm SRPT a SPT c.since the SRPT a rule is optimal if b j = c j = 0, Algorithm SRPT a SPT c must have the minimum n C a j among all possible schedules. That is C aj Ca j. Thus, the total completion time is at most C aj + b j + c j + c i delays c j c i (C +aj b j + c j ) + c i <c j c i 2C. Theorem 5.6 Algorithm SRPT a SPT c generates a (4, 2) preemptive schedule with migration when m 1 1, m 2 1 and r j = 0 for all j. Proof As before, let k be the job with the maximum completion time, and let l be the last job such that the task c l runs immediately after it is ready at C al + b l. Then the intervals I 1 =[0,C al a l ) and I 2 =[(C al + b l ), (C max c k )) must be both busy. And I 1 a j <a l a j /m 1 <C max and I 2 c j <c l c j /m 2 <C max. Therefore, C max = I 1 +(a l + b l ) + I 2 +c k < 4C max. Since all a tasks are available at time 0, then the SRPT a rule is the same as the SPT a rule. As mentioned before, the SPT a rule minimizes the total completion time of the a tasks. Let Ca i be the finish time of a i in an optimal schedule, and let C ai be the finish time of a i in the schedule generated by Algorithm SRPT a SPT c. Then, as in the case of m 1 = m 2 = 1, a lower bound of the total completion time is ( ) ( ) C (Ca i + b j + c j ) = Ca i + B + C C ai + B + C. (7) i=1 i=1 When the task c j is ready, it can be delayed by a task c i only if c i <c j. The length of the interval [(C aj + b j ), C j c j ) is at most c i c i <c j m 2, since all postprocessing masters must be busy and can only run the task c i such that c i <c j during this interval. Hence the total completion time is at most ( C j C aj + b j + c j + ) c i = C aj + B + C c i + 2C, m 2 m c i <c 2 j i=1 c i <c j where the last inequality comes from (7) and a trivial lower bound of C, C n c i c i <c j m 2.
14 228 Ann Oper Res (2008) 159: Theorem 5.7 Algorithm SRPT a SPT c generates a (4, 3) preemptive schedule with migration when m 1 1, m 2 1 and r j 0 for all j. Proof Using similar argument as in the proof of Theorem 5.6, one can show that C max 4C max. Let C a j be the completion time of a j in an optimal schedule. Again we have C ( C a j ) + B + C. LetC aj be the completion time of a j in the schedule generated by Algorithm SRPT a SPT c. As mentioned before, the SRPT a rule is a 2-approximation when b j = c j = 0. Thus, it must true that C aj 2 C a j,and C j = C aj + b j + c j + c i /m 2 c i <c j C aj + B + C + c i /m 2 c i <c j ( ) Ca j + C a j + B + C + 3C. c i c j c i /m 2 This concludes our proof. 6 Converting preemptive schedules into non-preemptive schedules As we mentioned before, we obtain non-preemptive schedules by converting from preemptive schedules. Our approach is based on the technique that was introduced by Phillips et al. (1998), and improved by Chekuri et al. (2001). The model studied in Phillips et al. (1998) consists of one or more identical machines and n simple jobs. Let S be a preemptive schedule. To obtain a non-preemptive schedule S, they form a list of jobs in increasing order of their completion times in S andthenlist schedule the jobs in this list one by one, respecting their release times. They showed that if S is a β-approximation for total completion time, then S is a 2βapproximation in the single-machine environment and a 3β-approximation in the multimachine environment. In addition, this conversion also yields an online non-preemptive algorithm if the preemptive schedule can be generated online. Later, Chekurietal.(2001) improved the above results in the single machine case. Chekuri et al. designed a deterministic O(n 2 ) time offline algorithm such that the schedule e obtained has total completion time at most times that of the preemptive schedule, where e 1 e is the base of natural log. As well, they gave a randomized online algorithm with expected performance e e 1. In the multi-machine case, Chakrabarti et al. (1996) showed that the convert procedure given in Phillips et al. (1998) has a bound of 7/3, instead of 3 times that of S. In both cases one can show that if S is an α-approximation for makespan, then S is an (α + 1)- approximation for makespan. In the following, we will describe how to convert preemptive schedules generated in the previous section to non-preemptive schedules in the master-slave model. The difficulty of
15 Ann Oper Res (2008) 159: our conversion is that we need to respect not only the release time of a i,1 i n, butalso respect the constraint that the interval between the finish time of a i and the start time of c i has length at least b i. Theorem 6.1 In O(n 2 ) time, one can obtain a ( 5 2, 2e ) non-preemptive canonical schedule e 1 when there is a single master and r j = 0 for all j. Proof Let S be a preemptive canonical schedule of n jobs obtained by applying Corollary 5.1. LetS a be the partial schedule of S during the interval (0,A], ands c be the partial schedule of S c during the interval (A, C max ]. Clearly S a contains all a tasks only. By the Algorithm Canonical-SPT c, there is no preemption in S a.letc aj be the completion time of a j. It is easy to see that the partial schedule S c contains all c tasks only and it can be seen as a preemptive schedule of n tasks on a single machine where each task j has a release time max(a, C aj + b j ) and processing time c j. To convert S into a non-preemptive schedule S, one fixes S a and convert S c to a nonpreemptive schedule S c of c tasks by using the approach of Chekuri et al. (2001). Let C j and C j be the completion time of c j in S and S, respectively. As mentioned at the beginning of the section, it has been shown in Chekuri et al. (2001)thatC j e e 1 C j and C j C j + C max. Since S is a ( 3 2, 2) canonical schedule, the obtained schedule is a ( 5 2, 2e e 1 ) non-preemptive canonical schedule. This concludes the proof. Theorem 6.2 In O(nlog n) time, one can obtain a (3, 4) online non-preemptive schedule when there is a single master and r j 0 for all job j. Proof Let S be the (2, 2) non-canonical schedule in Theorem 5.2. Wegetaλ-schedule S, λ = 1, similarly as in Phillips et al. (1998). Using similar arguments as that in Phillips et al. (1998), we can show that the obtained schedule is a (3, 4) non-preemptive schedule. Furthermore, it can be implemented online if the preemptive schedule is online. For multi-master systems, let S be the (2, 2)-schedule generated by Algorithm Multi- Master-SPT a+c.thens has no migration. One can obtain the non-preemptive schedule S by converting the schedule on each machine separately in the same way as described in the proof of Theorem 6.2. The following can be shown; see Leung and Zhao ( 2006) for detail. Theorem 6.3 For multi-master systems, one can obtain a (5, 4) non-preemptive offline schedule. Now we consider systems which have m 1 preprocessors and m 2 postprocessors. Suppose m 1 = m 2 = 1. When the release times of all jobs are identical, then there is no preemption on the single preprocessor. So we simply do conversion on the single postprocessor using the approach given in Chekuri et al. (2001). When the release times are arbitrary, we need to do the conversion carefully so as to make sure that the difference between the finish time of a j and the start time of c j is at least b j.wefirstremovethepreemptions among the a tasks as in Chekuri et al. (2001), respecting the release times of the a tasks. Next, we remove the preemptions among the c tasks as in Phillips et al. (1998) andmake sure the interval between the finish time of a j and the start time of c j is at least b j for each job j. We summarize the results as follows.
16 230 Ann Oper Res (2008) 159: Theorem 6.4 When there is a single preprocessor and a single postprocessor, one can obtain a (4, 2e e 1 a (4, 4+ 2e e 1 ) non-preemptive offline schedule if all jobs have the same release time ) non-preemptive offline schedule or an online non-preemptive schedule with ) if the jobs have arbitrary release time. expected performance of (4, 4 + 2e e 1 Now suppose m 1,m 2 > 1. When the release times of all jobs are identical, no preemption occurs on the preprocessors. So we do conversion on the postprocessors using the approach given in Phillips et al. (1998). When the release times are arbitrary, we first remove preemptions among the a tasks, respecting the release times of the a tasks as in Phillips et al. (1998). Next, we remove preemptions among the c tasks and make sure that the interval between the finish time of a j and the start time of c j is at least b j for each job j. Theorem 6.5 When there are m 1 preprocessors and m 2 postprocessors, in O(nlog n) time, one can obtain a (4, 14/3) non-preemptive schedule when all jobs have the same release times a (5, 13) non-preemptive online schedule when the jobs have arbitrary release times. 7 Conclusion In this paper we have considered the problem of minimizing total completion time and makespan in the master-slave model in various settings. We first show that the problem of minimizing the total completion time is NP-hard in the strong sense. Then we consider some special case of the problems. We show that while the total completion time problem and makespan problem are strongly NP-hard in general, there is a special case that admits a polynomial time solution. Then we turn to approximation algorithms. We designed efficient algorithms to generate preemptive schedules with good performance ratios. In all cases, these schedules have small makespan as well. Then we convert the preemptive schedules into non-preemptive schedules using the techniques developed in Phillips et al. (1998), Chakrabarti et al. (1996) and Chekuri et al. (2001). Most of the performance bounds derived in this paper are not tight. For future research, it will be interesting to tighten these bounds, or develop better approximation algorithms. References Allaoui, H., & Artiba, A. (2006). Scheduling two-stage hybrid flow shop with availability constraints. Computers and Operations Research, 33(5), Buten, R. E., & Shen, V. Y. (1973). A scheduling model for computer systems with two classes of processors. In Proceedings of 1973 sagamore computer conference on parallel processing (pp ). Chakrabarti, S., Phillips, C., Schulz, A., Shmoys, D. B., Stein, C., & Wein, J. (1996). Improved scheduling algorithms for minsum criteria. In Proceedings of the 23rd international colloquium on automata, languages and programming (pp ). Chekuri, C., Motwani, R., Natarajan, B., & Stein, C. (2001). Approximation techniques for average completion time scheduling. SIAM Journal on Computing, 31(1), Cheng, T. C. E., & Sin, C. C. S. (1990). State-of-the-art review of parallel-machine scheduling research. European Journal of Operational Research, 47, Goemans, M. X. (1997). Improved approximation algorithms for scheduling with release dates. In Proceedings of the eighth ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (pp ).
17 Ann Oper Res (2008) 159: Guinet, A. G. P., & Solomon, M. M. (1996). Scheduling hybrid flowshops to minimize maximum tardiness or maximum completion-time. International Journal of Production Research, 34, Gupta, J. N. D., & Tunc, E. A. (1994). Scheduling a 2-stage hybrid flowshop with separable setup and removal times. European Journal of Operational Research, 77, Hall, L. A., Schulz, A. S., Shmoys, D. B., & Wein, J. (1997). Scheduling to minimize average completion time: Offline and online algorithms. Mathematics of Operations Research, 22, Kern, W., & Nawijn, W. (1991). Scheduling multi-operation jobs with time lags on a single machine. In U. Faigle & C. Hoede (Eds.). Proceedings 2nd twente workshop on graphs and combinatorial optimization, Enschede. Langston, M. A. (1987). Interstage transportation planning in the deterministic flow-shop environment. Operations Research, 35(4), Lee, C.-Y., & Vairaktarakis, G. L. (1994). Minimizing makespan in hybrid flowshops. Operations Research Letters, 16, Leung, J. Y.-T., & Zhao, H. (2005). Minimizing mean flowtime and makespan on master-slave systems. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 65, Leung, J. Y.-T., & Zha, H. (2006). Minimizing sum of completion times and makespan in master-slave systems. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 55, Phillips, C., Stein, C., & Wein, J. (1998). Minimizing average completion time in the presence of release dates. Mathematical Programming, 82, Sahni, S. (1996). Scheduling master-slave multiprocessor systems. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 45(10), Sahni, S., & Vairaktarakis, G. (1996). The master-slave paradigm in parallel computer and industrial settings. Journal of Global Optimization, 9, Sahni, S., & Vairaktarakis, G. (2004). The master-slave scheduling model. In J. Y.-T. Leung (Ed.), Handbook of scheduling: Algorithms, models, and performance analysis. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Schrage, L. (1968). A proof of the optimality of the shortest remaining processing time discipline. Operations Research, 16, Schulz, A. S., & Skutella, M. (1997). Scheduling-LPs bear probabilities: Randomized approximations for min-sum criteria. In Proceedings of the fifth annual European symposium on algorithms (pp ). Smith, D. (1976). A new proof of the optimality of the shortest remaining processing time discipline. Operations Research, 26(1), Sriskandarajah, C., & Sethi, S. P. (1989). Scheduling algorithms for flexible flowshops: worst and average case performance. European Journal of Operational Research, 43, Vairaktarakis, G. (1997). Analysis of algorithms for master-slave system. IIE Transactions, 29(11), Yu, W., Hoogeveen, H., & Lenstra, J. K. (2004). Minimizing makespan in a two-machine flowshop with delays and unit-time operations is NP-hard. Journal of Scheduling, 7(5),
Minimizing Mean Flowtime and Makespan on Master-Slave Systems
Minimizing Mean Flowtime and Makespan on Master-Slave Systems Joseph Y-T. Leung,1 and Hairong Zhao 2 Department of Computer Science New Jersey Institute of Technology Newark, NJ 07102, USA Abstract The
More informationCombinatorial Algorithms for Minimizing the Weighted Sum of Completion Times on a Single Machine
Combinatorial Algorithms for Minimizing the Weighted Sum of Completion Times on a Single Machine James M. Davis 1, Rajiv Gandhi, and Vijay Kothari 1 Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University-Camden,
More informationImproved Bounds on Relaxations of a Parallel Machine Scheduling Problem
Journal of Combinatorial Optimization 1, 413 426 (1998) c 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers Manufactured in The Netherlands Improved Bounds on Relaxations of a Parallel Machine Scheduling Problem CYNTHIA
More information2 Martin Skutella modeled by machine-dependent release dates r i 0 which denote the earliest point in time when ob may be processed on machine i. Toge
Convex Quadratic Programming Relaxations for Network Scheduling Problems? Martin Skutella?? Technische Universitat Berlin skutella@math.tu-berlin.de http://www.math.tu-berlin.de/~skutella/ Abstract. In
More informationImproved Bounds for Flow Shop Scheduling
Improved Bounds for Flow Shop Scheduling Monaldo Mastrolilli and Ola Svensson IDSIA - Switzerland. {monaldo,ola}@idsia.ch Abstract. We resolve an open question raised by Feige & Scheideler by showing that
More informationA polynomial-time approximation scheme for the two-machine flow shop scheduling problem with an availability constraint
A polynomial-time approximation scheme for the two-machine flow shop scheduling problem with an availability constraint Joachim Breit Department of Information and Technology Management, Saarland University,
More informationCompletion Time Scheduling and the WSRPT Algorithm
Connecticut College Digital Commons @ Connecticut College Computer Science Faculty Publications Computer Science Department Spring 4-2012 Completion Time Scheduling and the WSRPT Algorithm Christine Chung
More informationScheduling Online Algorithms. Tim Nieberg
Scheduling Online Algorithms Tim Nieberg General Introduction on-line scheduling can be seen as scheduling with incomplete information at certain points, decisions have to be made without knowing the complete
More informationSPT is Optimally Competitive for Uniprocessor Flow
SPT is Optimally Competitive for Uniprocessor Flow David P. Bunde Abstract We show that the Shortest Processing Time (SPT) algorithm is ( + 1)/2-competitive for nonpreemptive uniprocessor total flow time
More informationSCHEDULING UNRELATED MACHINES BY RANDOMIZED ROUNDING
SIAM J. DISCRETE MATH. Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 450 469 c 2002 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics SCHEDULING UNRELATED MACHINES BY RANDOMIZED ROUNDING ANDREAS S. SCHULZ AND MARTIN SKUTELLA Abstract.
More informationMachine Scheduling with Deliveries to Multiple Customer Locations
This is the Pre-Published Version. Machine Scheduling with Deliveries to Multiple Customer Locations Chung-Lun Li George Vairaktarakis Chung-Yee Lee April 2003 Revised: November 2003 Abstract One important
More informationPreemptive Online Scheduling: Optimal Algorithms for All Speeds
Preemptive Online Scheduling: Optimal Algorithms for All Speeds Tomáš Ebenlendr Wojciech Jawor Jiří Sgall Abstract Our main result is an optimal online algorithm for preemptive scheduling on uniformly
More informationBatch delivery scheduling with simple linear deterioration on a single machine 1
Acta Technica 61, No. 4A/2016, 281 290 c 2017 Institute of Thermomechanics CAS, v.v.i. Batch delivery scheduling with simple linear deterioration on a single machine 1 Juan Zou 2,3 Abstract. Several single
More informationOptimal on-line algorithms for single-machine scheduling
Optimal on-line algorithms for single-machine scheduling J.A. Hoogeveen A.P.A. Vestjens Department of Mathematics and Computing Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O.Box 513, 5600 MB, Eindhoven,
More informationOn Machine Dependency in Shop Scheduling
On Machine Dependency in Shop Scheduling Evgeny Shchepin Nodari Vakhania Abstract One of the main restrictions in scheduling problems are the machine (resource) restrictions: each machine can perform at
More informationOn-line Scheduling to Minimize Max Flow Time: An Optimal Preemptive Algorithm
On-line Scheduling to Minimize Max Flow Time: An Optimal Preemptive Algorithm Christoph Ambühl and Monaldo Mastrolilli IDSIA Galleria 2, CH-6928 Manno, Switzerland October 22, 2004 Abstract We investigate
More informationHEURISTICS FOR TWO-MACHINE FLOWSHOP SCHEDULING WITH SETUP TIMES AND AN AVAILABILITY CONSTRAINT
HEURISTICS FOR TWO-MACHINE FLOWSHOP SCHEDULING WITH SETUP TIMES AND AN AVAILABILITY CONSTRAINT Wei Cheng Health Monitor Network, Parmus, NJ John Karlof Department of Mathematics and Statistics University
More informationAn on-line approach to hybrid flow shop scheduling with jobs arriving over time
An on-line approach to hybrid flow shop scheduling with jobs arriving over time Verena Gondek, University of Duisburg-Essen Abstract During the manufacturing process in a steel mill, the chemical composition
More informationAn improved approximation algorithm for two-machine flow shop scheduling with an availability constraint
An improved approximation algorithm for two-machine flow shop scheduling with an availability constraint J. Breit Department of Information and Technology Management, Saarland University, Saarbrcken, Germany
More informationLecture 13. Real-Time Scheduling. Daniel Kästner AbsInt GmbH 2013
Lecture 3 Real-Time Scheduling Daniel Kästner AbsInt GmbH 203 Model-based Software Development 2 SCADE Suite Application Model in SCADE (data flow + SSM) System Model (tasks, interrupts, buses, ) SymTA/S
More informationEmbedded Systems Development
Embedded Systems Development Lecture 3 Real-Time Scheduling Dr. Daniel Kästner AbsInt Angewandte Informatik GmbH kaestner@absint.com Model-based Software Development Generator Lustre programs Esterel programs
More informationStochastic Online Scheduling Revisited
Stochastic Online Scheduling Revisited Andreas S. Schulz Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, E53-361, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA Abstract. We consider
More informationONLINE SCHEDULING OF MALLEABLE PARALLEL JOBS
ONLINE SCHEDULING OF MALLEABLE PARALLEL JOBS Richard A. Dutton and Weizhen Mao Department of Computer Science The College of William and Mary P.O. Box 795 Williamsburg, VA 2317-795, USA email: {radutt,wm}@cs.wm.edu
More informationTask Models and Scheduling
Task Models and Scheduling Jan Reineke Saarland University June 27 th, 2013 With thanks to Jian-Jia Chen at KIT! Jan Reineke Task Models and Scheduling June 27 th, 2013 1 / 36 Task Models and Scheduling
More informationScheduling Parallel Jobs with Linear Speedup
Scheduling Parallel Jobs with Linear Speedup Alexander Grigoriev and Marc Uetz Maastricht University, Quantitative Economics, P.O.Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. Email: {a.grigoriev, m.uetz}@ke.unimaas.nl
More informationWeighted flow time does not admit O(1)-competitive algorithms
Weighted flow time does not admit O(-competitive algorithms Nihil Bansal Ho-Leung Chan Abstract We consider the classic online scheduling problem of minimizing the total weighted flow time on a single
More informationSTABILITY OF JOHNSON S SCHEDULE WITH LIMITED MACHINE AVAILABILITY
MOSIM 01 du 25 au 27 avril 2001 Troyes (France) STABILITY OF JOHNSON S SCHEDULE WITH LIMITED MACHINE AVAILABILITY Oliver BRAUN, Günter SCHMIDT Department of Information and Technology Management Saarland
More informationMinimizing Average Completion Time in the. Presence of Release Dates. September 4, Abstract
Minimizing Average Completion Time in the Presence of Release Dates Cynthia Phillips Cliord Stein y Joel Wein z September 4, 1996 Abstract A natural and basic problem in scheduling theory is to provide
More informationRate-monotonic scheduling on uniform multiprocessors
Rate-monotonic scheduling on uniform multiprocessors Sanjoy K. Baruah The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Email: baruah@cs.unc.edu Joël Goossens Université Libre de Bruxelles Email: joel.goossens@ulb.ac.be
More informationAlgorithm Design. Scheduling Algorithms. Part 2. Parallel machines. Open-shop Scheduling. Job-shop Scheduling.
Algorithm Design Scheduling Algorithms Part 2 Parallel machines. Open-shop Scheduling. Job-shop Scheduling. 1 Parallel Machines n jobs need to be scheduled on m machines, M 1,M 2,,M m. Each machine can
More informationUniversity of Twente. Faculty of Mathematical Sciences. Scheduling split-jobs on parallel machines. University for Technical and Social Sciences
Faculty of Mathematical Sciences University of Twente University for Technical and Social Sciences P.O. Box 217 7500 AE Enschede The Netherlands Phone: +31-53-4893400 Fax: +31-53-4893114 Email: memo@math.utwente.nl
More informationSingle machine scheduling with forbidden start times
4OR manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Single machine scheduling with forbidden start times Jean-Charles Billaut 1 and Francis Sourd 2 1 Laboratoire d Informatique Université François-Rabelais
More informationshowed that the SMAT algorithm generates shelf based schedules with an approximation factor of 8.53 [10]. Turek et al. [14] proved that a generalizati
Preemptive Weighted Completion Time Scheduling of Parallel Jobs? Uwe Schwiegelshohn Computer Engineering Institute, University Dortmund, 441 Dortmund, Germany, uwe@carla.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de Abstract.
More informationComplexity and Algorithms for Two-Stage Flexible Flowshop Scheduling with Availability Constraints
Complexity and Algorithms or Two-Stage Flexible Flowshop Scheduling with Availability Constraints Jinxing Xie, Xijun Wang Department o Mathematical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
More information1 Ordinary Load Balancing
Comp 260: Advanced Algorithms Prof. Lenore Cowen Tufts University, Spring 208 Scribe: Emily Davis Lecture 8: Scheduling Ordinary Load Balancing Suppose we have a set of jobs each with their own finite
More informationA Robust APTAS for the Classical Bin Packing Problem
A Robust APTAS for the Classical Bin Packing Problem Leah Epstein 1 and Asaf Levin 2 1 Department of Mathematics, University of Haifa, 31905 Haifa, Israel. Email: lea@math.haifa.ac.il 2 Department of Statistics,
More informationIdeal preemptive schedules on two processors
Acta Informatica 39, 597 612 (2003) Digital Object Identifier (DOI) 10.1007/s00236-003-0119-6 c Springer-Verlag 2003 Ideal preemptive schedules on two processors E.G. Coffman, Jr. 1, J. Sethuraman 2,,
More informationThe Power of Preemption on Unrelated Machines and Applications to Scheduling Orders
MATHEMATICS OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH Vol. 37, No. 2, May 2012, pp. 379 398 ISSN 0364-765X (print) ISSN 1526-5471 (online) http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/moor.1110.0520 2012 INFORMS The Power of Preemption on
More informationAPPROXIMATION BOUNDS FOR A GENERAL CLASS OF PRECEDENCE CONSTRAINED PARALLEL MACHINE SCHEDULING PROBLEMS
SIAM J. COMPUT. Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 1241 1253 c 2006 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics APPROXIMATION BOUNDS FOR A GENERAL CLASS OF PRECEDENCE CONSTRAINED PARALLEL MACHINE SCHEDULING PROBLEMS
More informationScheduling jobs with agreeable processing times and due dates on a single batch processing machine
Theoretical Computer Science 374 007 159 169 www.elsevier.com/locate/tcs Scheduling jobs with agreeable processing times and due dates on a single batch processing machine L.L. Liu, C.T. Ng, T.C.E. Cheng
More informationScheduling Lecture 1: Scheduling on One Machine
Scheduling Lecture 1: Scheduling on One Machine Loris Marchal October 16, 2012 1 Generalities 1.1 Definition of scheduling allocation of limited resources to activities over time activities: tasks in computer
More informationA note on the complexity of the concurrent open shop problem
J Sched (2006) 9: 389 396 DOI 10.1007/s10951-006-7042-y A note on the complexity of the concurrent open shop problem Thomas A. Roemer C Science + Business Media, LLC 2006 Abstract The concurrent open shop
More informationBasic Scheduling Problems with Raw Material Constraints
Basic Scheduling Problems with Raw Material Constraints Alexander Grigoriev, 1 Martijn Holthuijsen, 2 Joris van de Klundert 2 1 Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Maastricht,
More informationSchedulability analysis of global Deadline-Monotonic scheduling
Schedulability analysis of global Deadline-Monotonic scheduling Sanjoy Baruah Abstract The multiprocessor Deadline-Monotonic (DM) scheduling of sporadic task systems is studied. A new sufficient schedulability
More informationApproximation algorithms for scheduling problems with a modified total weighted tardiness objective
Approximation algorithms for scheduling problems with a modified total weighted tardiness objective Stavros G. Kolliopoulos George Steiner December 2, 2005 Abstract Minimizing the total weighted tardiness
More informationDeterministic Models: Preliminaries
Chapter 2 Deterministic Models: Preliminaries 2.1 Framework and Notation......................... 13 2.2 Examples... 20 2.3 Classes of Schedules... 21 2.4 Complexity Hierarchy... 25 Over the last fifty
More informationPolynomially solvable and NP-hard special cases for scheduling with heads and tails
Polynomially solvable and NP-hard special cases for scheduling with heads and tails Elisa Chinos, Nodari Vakhania Centro de Investigación en Ciencias, UAEMor, Mexico Abstract We consider a basic single-machine
More informationNon-preemptive Fixed Priority Scheduling of Hard Real-Time Periodic Tasks
Non-preemptive Fixed Priority Scheduling of Hard Real-Time Periodic Tasks Moonju Park Ubiquitous Computing Lab., IBM Korea, Seoul, Korea mjupark@kr.ibm.com Abstract. This paper addresses the problem of
More informationPartition is reducible to P2 C max. c. P2 Pj = 1, prec Cmax is solvable in polynomial time. P Pj = 1, prec Cmax is NP-hard
I. Minimizing Cmax (Nonpreemptive) a. P2 C max is NP-hard. Partition is reducible to P2 C max b. P Pj = 1, intree Cmax P Pj = 1, outtree Cmax are both solvable in polynomial time. c. P2 Pj = 1, prec Cmax
More informationScheduling Coflows in Datacenter Networks: Improved Bound for Total Weighted Completion Time
1 1 2 Scheduling Coflows in Datacenter Networs: Improved Bound for Total Weighted Completion Time Mehrnoosh Shafiee and Javad Ghaderi Abstract Coflow is a recently proposed networing abstraction to capture
More informationComplexity analysis of job-shop scheduling with deteriorating jobs
Discrete Applied Mathematics 117 (2002) 195 209 Complexity analysis of job-shop scheduling with deteriorating jobs Gur Mosheiov School of Business Administration and Department of Statistics, The Hebrew
More informationMultiprocessor jobs, preemptive schedules, and one-competitive online algorithms
Multiprocessor jobs, preemptive schedules, and one-competitive online algorithms Jiří Sgall 1 and Gerhard J. Woeginger 2 1 Computer Science Institute of Charles University, Praha, Czech Republic, sgall@iuuk.mff.cuni.cz.
More informationLecture 2: Scheduling on Parallel Machines
Lecture 2: Scheduling on Parallel Machines Loris Marchal October 17, 2012 Parallel environment alpha in Graham s notation): P parallel identical Q uniform machines: each machine has a given speed speed
More informationimmediately, without knowledge of the jobs that arrive later The jobs cannot be preempted, ie, once a job is scheduled (assigned to a machine), it can
A Lower Bound for Randomized On-Line Multiprocessor Scheduling Jir Sgall Abstract We signicantly improve the previous lower bounds on the performance of randomized algorithms for on-line scheduling jobs
More informationarxiv: v2 [cs.dm] 2 Mar 2017
Shared multi-processor scheduling arxiv:607.060v [cs.dm] Mar 07 Dariusz Dereniowski Faculty of Electronics, Telecommunications and Informatics, Gdańsk University of Technology, Gdańsk, Poland Abstract
More informationA BEST-COMPROMISE BICRITERIA SCHEDULING ALGORITHM FOR PARALLEL TASKS
A BEST-COMPROMISE BICRITERIA SCHEDULING ALGORITHM FOR PARALLEL TASKS Pierre-François Dutot and Denis Trystram ID-IMAG - 51, avenue J. Kuntzmann 38330 Montbonnot St-Martin, France pfdutot@imag.fr Abstract
More informationSingle Machine Scheduling with a Non-renewable Financial Resource
Single Machine Scheduling with a Non-renewable Financial Resource Evgeny R. Gafarov a, Alexander A. Lazarev b Institute of Control Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Profsoyuznaya st. 65, 117997
More informationPolynomial time solutions for scheduling problems on a proportionate flowshop with two competing agents
Journal of the Operational Research Society (2014) 65, 151 157 2014 Operational Research Society Ltd All rights reserved 0160-5682/14 wwwpalgrave-journalscom/jors/ Polynomial time solutions for scheduling
More informationOnline algorithms for parallel job scheduling and strip packing Hurink, J.L.; Paulus, J.J.
Online algorithms for parallel job scheduling and strip packing Hurink, J.L.; Paulus, J.J. Published: 01/01/007 Document Version Publisher s PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue
More informationOn-line Bin-Stretching. Yossi Azar y Oded Regev z. Abstract. We are given a sequence of items that can be packed into m unit size bins.
On-line Bin-Stretching Yossi Azar y Oded Regev z Abstract We are given a sequence of items that can be packed into m unit size bins. In the classical bin packing problem we x the size of the bins and try
More informationApproximation Algorithms for scheduling
Approximation Algorithms for scheduling Ahmed Abu Safia I.D.:119936343, McGill University, 2004 (COMP 760) Approximation Algorithms for scheduling Leslie A. Hall The first Chapter of the book entitled
More informationTardiness Bounds under Global EDF Scheduling on a Multiprocessor
Tardiness ounds under Global EDF Scheduling on a Multiprocessor UmaMaheswari C. Devi and James H. Anderson Department of Computer Science The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Abstract This paper
More informationHeuristics for two-machine flowshop scheduling with setup times and an availability constraint
Heuristics for two-machine flowshop scheduling with setup times and an availability constraint Wei Cheng A Thesis Submitted to the University of North Carolina Wilmington in Partial Fulfillment Of the
More informationHybrid Flowshop Scheduling with Interstage Job Transportation
J. Oper. Res. Soc. China (2014) 2:109 121 DOI 10.1007/s40305-014-0040-4 Hybrid Flowshop Scheduling with Interstage Job Transportation Wei-ya Zhong Long-hua Lv Received: 5 January 2014 / Revised: 20 February
More informationScheduling Linear Deteriorating Jobs with an Availability Constraint on a Single Machine 1
Scheduling Linear Deteriorating Jobs with an Availability Constraint on a Single Machine 1 Min Ji a, b, 2 Yong He b, 3 T.C.E. Cheng c, 4 a College of Computer Science & Information Engineering, Zhejiang
More informationEmbedded Systems 14. Overview of embedded systems design
Embedded Systems 14-1 - Overview of embedded systems design - 2-1 Point of departure: Scheduling general IT systems In general IT systems, not much is known about the computational processes a priori The
More informationOptimal delivery time quotation in supply chains to minimize tardiness and delivery costs
J Sched (2015) 18:3 13 DOI 10.1007/s10951-014-0396-7 Optimal delivery time quotation in supply chains to minimize tardiness and delivery costs Sorina Dumitrescu George Steiner Rui Zhang Received: 19 June
More informationPolynomial Time Algorithms for Minimum Energy Scheduling
Polynomial Time Algorithms for Minimum Energy Scheduling Philippe Baptiste 1, Marek Chrobak 2, and Christoph Dürr 1 1 CNRS, LIX UMR 7161, Ecole Polytechnique 91128 Palaiseau, France. Supported by CNRS/NSF
More informationNetworked Embedded Systems WS 2016/17
Networked Embedded Systems WS 2016/17 Lecture 2: Real-time Scheduling Marco Zimmerling Goal of Today s Lecture Introduction to scheduling of compute tasks on a single processor Tasks need to finish before
More informationA New Approach to Online Scheduling: Approximating the Optimal Competitive Ratio
A New Approach to Online Scheduling: Approximating the Optimal Competitive Ratio Elisabeth Günther Olaf Maurer Nicole Megow Andreas Wiese Abstract We propose a new approach to competitive analysis in online
More informationSingle processor scheduling with time restrictions
Single processor scheduling with time restrictions Oliver Braun Fan Chung Ron Graham Abstract We consider the following scheduling problem 1. We are given a set S of jobs which are to be scheduled sequentially
More informationhal , version 1-27 Mar 2014
Author manuscript, published in "2nd Multidisciplinary International Conference on Scheduling : Theory and Applications (MISTA 2005), New York, NY. : United States (2005)" 2 More formally, we denote by
More informationOpen Problems in Throughput Scheduling
Open Problems in Throughput Scheduling Jiří Sgall Computer Science Institute of Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Malostranské nám. 25, CZ-11800 Praha 1, Czech Republic. sgall@iuuk.mff.cuni.cz
More informationEmbedded Systems 15. REVIEW: Aperiodic scheduling. C i J i 0 a i s i f i d i
Embedded Systems 15-1 - REVIEW: Aperiodic scheduling C i J i 0 a i s i f i d i Given: A set of non-periodic tasks {J 1,, J n } with arrival times a i, deadlines d i, computation times C i precedence constraints
More informationResearch Article Batch Scheduling on Two-Machine Flowshop with Machine-Dependent Setup Times
Advances in Operations Research Volume 2009, Article ID 153910, 10 pages doi:10.1155/2009/153910 Research Article Batch Scheduling on Two-Machine Flowshop with Machine-Dependent Setup Times Lika Ben-Dati,
More informationScheduling to Minimize Total Weighted Completion Time via Time-Indexed Linear Programming Relaxations
58th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science Scheduling to Minimize Total Weighted Completion Time via Time-Indexed Linear Programming Relaxations Shi Li Department of Computer Science
More informationMultiprocessor Scheduling of Age Constraint Processes
Multiprocessor Scheduling of Age Constraint Processes Lars Lundberg Department of Computer Science, University of Karlskrona/Ronneby, Soft Center, S-372 25 Ronneby, Sweden, email: Lars.Lundberg@ide.hk-r.se
More informationFH2(P 2,P2) hybrid flow shop scheduling with recirculation of jobs
FH2(P 2,P2) hybrid flow shop scheduling with recirculation of jobs Nadjat Meziani 1 and Mourad Boudhar 2 1 University of Abderrahmane Mira Bejaia, Algeria 2 USTHB University Algiers, Algeria ro nadjet07@yahoo.fr
More informationSUPPLY CHAIN SCHEDULING: ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS. Zhi-Long Chen. Nicholas G. Hall
SUPPLY CHAIN SCHEDULING: ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS Zhi-Long Chen Nicholas G. Hall University of Pennsylvania The Ohio State University December 27, 2000 Abstract We study the issue of cooperation in supply chain
More informationOnline Scheduling of Parallel Jobs on Two Machines is 2-Competitive
Online Scheduling of Parallel Jobs on Two Machines is 2-Competitive J.L. Hurink and J.J. Paulus University of Twente, P.O. box 217, 7500AE Enschede, The Netherlands Abstract We consider online scheduling
More informationSingle Machine Scheduling with Job-Dependent Machine Deterioration
Single Machine Scheduling with Job-Dependent Machine Deterioration Wenchang Luo 1, Yao Xu 2, Weitian Tong 3, and Guohui Lin 4 1 Faculty of Science, Ningbo University. Ningbo, Zhejiang 315211, China; and
More informationAPPROXIMATION ALGORITHMS FOR SCHEDULING ORDERS ON PARALLEL MACHINES
UNIVERSIDAD DE CHILE FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS FÍSICAS Y MATEMÁTICAS DEPARTAMENTO DE INGENIERÍA MATEMÁTICA APPROXIMATION ALGORITHMS FOR SCHEDULING ORDERS ON PARALLEL MACHINES SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
More informationAPTAS for Bin Packing
APTAS for Bin Packing Bin Packing has an asymptotic PTAS (APTAS) [de la Vega and Leuker, 1980] For every fixed ε > 0 algorithm outputs a solution of size (1+ε)OPT + 1 in time polynomial in n APTAS for
More informationThroughput Optimization in Single and Dual-Gripper Robotic Cells
Throughput Optimization in Single and Dual-Gripper Robotic Cells U.V. Manoj; manojuv@tamu.edu College of Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Chelliah Sriskandarajah Mays Business School,
More informationAverage-Case Performance Analysis of Online Non-clairvoyant Scheduling of Parallel Tasks with Precedence Constraints
Average-Case Performance Analysis of Online Non-clairvoyant Scheduling of Parallel Tasks with Precedence Constraints Keqin Li Department of Computer Science State University of New York New Paltz, New
More informationSelect and Permute: An Improved Online Framework for Scheduling to Minimize Weighted Completion Time
Select and Permute: An Improved Online Framework for Scheduling to Minimize Weighted Completion Time Samir Khuller 1, Jingling Li 1, Pascal Sturmfels 2, Kevin Sun 3, and Prayaag Venkat 1 1 University of
More informationThe Constrained Minimum Weighted Sum of Job Completion Times Problem 1
The Constrained Minimum Weighted Sum of Job Completion Times Problem 1 Asaf Levin 2 and Gerhard J. Woeginger 34 Abstract We consider the problem of minimizing the weighted sum of job completion times on
More informationComplexity of preemptive minsum scheduling on unrelated parallel machines Sitters, R.A.
Complexity of preemptive minsum scheduling on unrelated parallel machines Sitters, R.A. Published: 01/01/2003 Document Version Publisher s PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue
More informationScheduling in an Assembly-Type Production Chain with Batch Transfer
This is the Pre-Published Version. Scheduling in an Assembly-Type Production Chain with Batch Transfer B.M.T. Lin 1,#, T.C.E. Cheng 2 and A.S.C. Chou 3 1 Department of Information and Finance Management
More informationModule 5: CPU Scheduling
Module 5: CPU Scheduling Basic Concepts Scheduling Criteria Scheduling Algorithms Multiple-Processor Scheduling Real-Time Scheduling Algorithm Evaluation 5.1 Basic Concepts Maximum CPU utilization obtained
More informationChapter 6: CPU Scheduling
Chapter 6: CPU Scheduling Basic Concepts Scheduling Criteria Scheduling Algorithms Multiple-Processor Scheduling Real-Time Scheduling Algorithm Evaluation 6.1 Basic Concepts Maximum CPU utilization obtained
More informationA combinatorial auctions perspective on min-sum scheduling problems
Yunpeng Pan A combinatorial auctions perspective on min-sum scheduling problems Abstract In combinatorial auctions, prospective buyers bid on bundles of items for sale, including but not limited to singleton
More informationCIS 4930/6930: Principles of Cyber-Physical Systems
CIS 4930/6930: Principles of Cyber-Physical Systems Chapter 11 Scheduling Hao Zheng Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of South Florida H. Zheng (CSE USF) CIS 4930/6930: Principles
More informationA Framework for Scheduling with Online Availability
A Framework for Scheduling with Online Availability Florian Diedrich, and Ulrich M. Schwarz Institut für Informatik, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany {fdi,ums}@informatik.uni-kiel.de
More informationApproximation Algorithms for Scheduling with Reservations
Approximation Algorithms for Scheduling with Reservations Florian Diedrich 1,,, Klaus Jansen 1,, Fanny Pascual 2, and Denis Trystram 2, 1 Institut für Informatik, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel,
More informationDependency Graph Approach for Multiprocessor Real-Time Synchronization. TU Dortmund, Germany
Dependency Graph Approach for Multiprocessor Real-Time Synchronization Jian-Jia Chen, Georg von der Bru ggen, Junjie Shi, and Niklas Ueter TU Dortmund, Germany 14,12,2018 at RTSS Jian-Jia Chen 1 / 21 Multiprocessor
More informationA robust APTAS for the classical bin packing problem
A robust APTAS for the classical bin packing problem Leah Epstein Asaf Levin Abstract Bin packing is a well studied problem which has many applications. In this paper we design a robust APTAS for the problem.
More informationMore Approximation Algorithms
CS 473: Algorithms, Spring 2018 More Approximation Algorithms Lecture 25 April 26, 2018 Most slides are courtesy Prof. Chekuri Ruta (UIUC) CS473 1 Spring 2018 1 / 28 Formal definition of approximation
More informationHYBRID FLOW-SHOP WITH ADJUSTMENT
K Y BERNETIKA VOLUM E 47 ( 2011), NUMBER 1, P AGES 50 59 HYBRID FLOW-SHOP WITH ADJUSTMENT Jan Pelikán The subject of this paper is a flow-shop based on a case study aimed at the optimisation of ordering
More informationReal-time scheduling of sporadic task systems when the number of distinct task types is small
Real-time scheduling of sporadic task systems when the number of distinct task types is small Sanjoy Baruah Nathan Fisher Abstract In some real-time application systems, there are only a few distinct kinds
More information