arxiv: v3 [cs.ds] 4 Aug 2017

Transcription

1 Non-preemptive Sceduling in a Smart Grid Model and its Implications on Macine Minimization Fu-Hong Liu 1, Hsiang-Hsuan Liu 1,2, and Prudence W.H. Wong 2 1 Department of Computer Science, National Tsing Hua University, 101 Kuang Fu Road, Hsincu, Taiwan, {fliu,liu}@cs.ntu.edu.tw 2 Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK, {liu,pwong}@liverpool.ac.uk arxiv: v3 [cs.ds] 4 Aug 2017 October 13, 2018 Abstract We study a sceduling problem arising in demand response management in smart grid. Consumers send in power requests wit a flexible feasible time interval during wic teir requests can be served. Te grid controller, upon receiving power requests, scedules eac request witin te specified interval. Te electricity cost is measured by a convex function of te load in eac timeslot. Te objective is to scedule all requests wit te minimum total electricity cost. Previous work as studied cases were jobs ave unit power requirement and unit duration. We extend te study to arbitrary power requirement and duration, wic as been sown to be NP-ard. We give te first online algoritm for te general problem, and prove tat te problem is fixed parameter tractable. We also sow tat te online algoritm is asymptotically optimal wen te objective is to minimize te peak load. In addition, we observe tat te classical non-preemptive macine minimization problem is a special case of te smart grid problem wit min-peak objective, and sow tat we can solve te non-preemptive macine minimization problem asymptotically optimally. 1 Introduction We study a sceduling problem arising in demand response management in smart grid [17, 22, 23,35,53]. Te electrical smart grid is one of te major callenges in te 21st century [15,47,48]. Te smart grid [18, 38] is a power grid system tat makes power generation, distribution and consumption more efficient troug information and communication tecnologies against te traditional power system. Peak demand ours appen only for a sort duration, yet makes existing electrical grid less efficient. It as been noted in [8] tat in te US power grid, 10% of all generation assets and 25% of distribution infrastructure are required for less tan 400 ours per year, rougly 5% of te time [48]. Demand response management attempts to overcome tis problem by sifting users demand to off-peak ours in order to reduce peak load [7, 27, 34, 37, 40, 43]. Researc initiatives in te area include [25, 33, 41, 46]. Te electricity grids supports demand response mecanism and obtains energy efficiency by organizing customer consumption of electricity in response to supply conditions. It is demonstrated in [35] tat demand response is of remarkable advantage to consumers, utilities, and society. Effective demand load management brings down te cost of operating te grid, as well as energy generation and distribution [34]. Demand response management is not only A preliminary version of tis paper appeared in Proceedings of te 27t International Symposium on Algoritms and Computation, ISAAC 2016 [31] and some results are improved in tis version. 1

2 advantageous to te supplier but also to te consumers as well. It is common tat electricity supplier carges according to te generation cost, i.e., te iger te generation cost te iger te electricity price. Terefore, it is to te consumers advantage to reduce electricity consumption at ig price and ence reduce te electricity bill [43]. Te smart grid operator and consumers communicate troug smart metering devices [28, 38]. A consumer sends in a power request wit te power requirement (cf. eigt of request), required duration of service (cf. widt of request), and te time interval tat tis request can be served (giving some flexibility). For example, a consumer may want te diswaser to operate for one our during te periods from 8am to 11am. Te grid operator upon receiving requests as to scedule tem in teir respective time intervals using te minimum energy cost. Te load of te grid at eac timeslot is te sum of te power requirements of all requests allocated to tat timeslot. Te electricity cost is modeled by a convex function on te load, in particular we consider te cost to be te α-t power of te load, were α > 1 is some constant. Typically, α is small, e.g., α = 2 [14, 44]. Previous work. Koutsopoulos and Tassiulas [27] as formulated a similar problem to our problem were te cost function is piecewise linear. Tey sow tat te problem is NP-ard, and teir proof can be adapted to sow te NP-ardness of te general problem studied in tis paper [6]. Burcea et al. [6] gave polynomial time optimal algoritms for te case of unit eigt (cf. unit power requirement) and unit widt (cf. unit duration). Feng et al. [19] ave claimed tat a simple greedy algoritm is 2-competitive for te unit case and α = 2. However, as to be described below in Lemma 4, tere is indeed a counter example tat te greedy algoritm is at least 3-competitive. Tis implies tat it is still an open question to derive online algoritms for te problem. Salinas et al. [43] considered a multi-objective problem to minimize energy consumption cost and maximize some utility. A closely related problem is to manage te load by canging te price of electricity over time [7, 16, 37, 39]. Heuristics ave also been developed for demand side management [34]. Oter aspects of smart grid ave also been considered, e.g., communication [8, 29, 30, 32], security [32, 36]. Reviews of smart grid can be found in [17, 22, 23, 35, 53]. Te main combinatorial problem we defined in tis paper as analogy to te traditional load balancing problem [3] and macine minimization problem [9, 12, 13, 42] but te main differences are te objective being maximum load and jobs are unit eigt [9, 12, 13, 42]. Minimizing maximum load as also been looked at in te context of smart grid [1, 26, 45, 50, 51], some of wic furter consider allowing resaping of te jobs [1,26]. As to be discussed in Section 2, our problem is more difficult tan minimizing te maximum load. Our problem also as resemblance to te dynamic speed scaling problem [2, 5, 49] and our algoritm as employed some tecniques tere. As to be discussed, our problem is closely related to te non-preemptive macine minimization problem [12, 13], wic as been claimed to be solved optimally in asymptotically sense for te online setting [42]. We provide an alternative asymptotically optimal competitive algoritm for te non-preemptive macine minimization problem. More precisely, we sow tat our algoritm for te smart grid problem can also solve te non-preemptive macine minimization problem wit asymptotically optimal competitive ratio. A more detailed discussion is in Section 7. Our contribution. In tis paper, we consider a demand response optimization problem minimizing te total electricity cost and study its relation wit oter sceduling problems. We propose te first online algoritm for te general problem wit worst case competitive ratio, wic is polylogaritm in te max-min ratio of te duration of jobs (Teorem 25 in Section 4); and give a lower bound for any online algoritm. Interestingly, te ratio depends on te max-min widt ratio but not te max-min eigt ratio. Te algoritm is based on an O(1)-competitive online algoritm for jobs wit uniform duration (Section 3). We also propose O(1)-competitive online algoritms for some special cases (Section 5). In addition, we sow tat te problem is fixed parameter tractable by proposing te first fixed parameter exact algoritms for te 2

3 Widt Heigt Ratio Unit Arbitrary 2 α (8(e + e 2 ) α + 1)-competitive 2 α+1 -approximate Uniform Arbitrary 12 α (8(e + e 2 ) α + 1)-competitive Arbitrary Arbitrary Θ(log α ( wmax w min ))-competitive Unit Uniform min((4α) α /2 + 1, 2 α (8(e + e 2 ) α + 1))-competitive Arbitrary Uniform ((8α) α /2 + 2 α )-competitive agreeable deadline Table 1: Summary of our online results or total electricity cost. problem; and derive lower bounds on te running time (Section 6). Table 1 gives a summary of our results. Interestingly, our online algoritm and exact algoritms depend on te variation of te job widts but not te variation of te job eigts. We furter sow tat our online algoritms and exact algoritms can be adapted to te objective of minimizing te peak electricity cost, as well as te related problem of non-preemptive macine minimization. Our online algoritms are asymptotically optimal for bot problems (Section 7.1), wit competitive ratio being logaritm in te max-min ratio of te job duration. In addition, we sow tat bot problems are fixed-parameter tractable (Section 7.2). Tecnically speaking, our online algoritms are based on identifying a relationsip wit te dynamic speed (voltage) scaling (DVS) problem [49]. Te main callenge, even wen jobs ave uniform widt or uniform eigt, is tat in time intervals were te workload is low, te optimal DVS scedule may ave muc lower cost tan te optimal GRID scedule because jobs in DVS scedules can effectively be stretced as flat as possible wile jobs in GRID scedules ave rigid duration and cannot be stretced. In suc case, it is insufficient to simply compare wit te optimal DVS scedule. Terefore, our analysis is divided into two parts: for ig workload intervals, we compare wit te optimal DVS scedule; and for low workload intervals, we directly compare wit te optimal GRID scedule via a lower bound on te total workload over tese intervals (Lemmas 6 and 30). For jobs wit arbitrary widt, we adopt te natural approac of classification based on job widt. We ten align te feasible interval of eac job in a more uniform way so tat we can use te results on uniform widt (Lemma 20). In designing exact algoritms we use interval graps to represent te jobs and te important notion maximal cliques to partition te time orizon into disjoint windows. Suc partition usually leads to optimal substructures; neverteless, non-preemption makes it trickier and requires a smart way to andle jobs spanning multiple windows. We describe ow to andle suc jobs witout adding a lot of overead. Organization of te paper. We define te problem and provide some basic observations in Section 2. Te online algoritms for uniform time duration and arbitrary power requirement are developed in Section 3 and are extended for solving te general case in Section 4. Te lower bound of online algoritms is provided in Section 4.3. Several special cases regarding uniform power requirement are discussed in Section 5. We design fixed-parameter exact algoritms in Section 6 and derive a lower bound for te running time in Section 6.3. In Section 7, we extend our online and exact algoritms to te objective of maximum load and te related non-preemptive macine minimization problem. We conclude te paper in Section 8. 2 Definitions and preliminaries Te input. Te time is labeled from 0 to τ and we consider events (release time, deadlines) occurring at integral time. We call te unit time [t, t + 1) timeslot t. We denote by J a set of input jobs in wic eac job J comes wit release time r(j), deadline d(j), widt w(j) 3

4 representing te duration required by J, and eigt (J) representing te power required by J. We assume r(j), d(j), w(j), and (J) are integers. Te feasible interval, denoted by I(J), is defined as te interval [r(j), d(j)) and we say tat J is available during I(J). We denote by I te lengt of an interval I, i.e., I = t 2 t 1 were I = [t 1, t 2 ). We define te density of J, denoted by den(j), to be (J) w(j) I(J). Rougly speaking, te density signifies te average load required by te job over its feasible interval. We ten define te average load at any time t as avg(t) = J:t I(J) den(j). In our analysis, we ave to distinguis timeslots wit ig and low average load. Terefore, for any > 0, we define I > and I to be set of timeslots were te average load avg(t) is larger tan and at most, respectively. Note tat I > and I do not need to be contiguous. In Section 4, we consider an algoritm tat classifies jobs according to teir widts. To ease discussion, we let w max and w min be te maximum and minimum widt over all jobs, respectively. We furter define te max-min ratio of widt, denoted by K, to be K = wmax w min. Witout loss of generality, we assume tat w min = 1. We say tat a job J is in class C p if and only if 2 p 1 < w(j) 2 p for any 0 p log K. Feasible scedule. A feasible scedule S as to assign for eac job J a start time st(s, J) Z meaning tat J runs during [st(s, J), et(s, J)), were te end time et(s, J) = st(s, J) + w(j), and [st(s, J), et(s, J)) I(J). Note tat tis means preemption is not allowed. Te load of S at time t, denoted by l(s, t) is te sum of te eigt (power request) of all jobs running at t, i.e., l(s, t) = J:t [st(s,j),et(s,j)) (J). We drop S and use l(t) wen te context is clear. For any algoritm A, we use A(J ) to denote te scedule of A on J. We denote by O te optimal algoritm. Te cost of a scedule S is te sum of te α-t power of te load over all time, for a constant α > 1, i.e., cost(s) = t (l(s, t))α. For a set of timeslots I (not necessarily contiguous), we denote by cost(s, I) = t I (l(s, t))α. Our goal is to find a feasible scedule S suc tat cost(s) is minimized. We call tis te GRID problem. Online algoritms. In tis paper, we consider online algoritms, were te job information is only revealed at te time te job is released; te algoritm as to decide wic jobs to run at te current time witout future information and decisions made cannot be canged later. Let A be an online algoritm. We say tat A is c-competitive if for all input job sets J, we ave cost(a(j )) c cost(o(j )). In particular, we consider non-preemptive algoritms were a job cannot be preempted to resume/restart later. Special input instances. We consider various special input instances. A job J is said to be unit-widt (resp. unit-eigt) if w(j) = 1 (resp. (J) = 1). A job set is said to be uniform-widt (resp. uniform-eigt) if te widt (resp. eigt) of all jobs are te same. A job set is said to ave agreeable deadlines if for any two jobs J 1 and J 2, r(j 1 ) r(j 2 ) implies d(j 1 ) d(j 2 ). Relating to te speed scaling problem. Te GRID problem resembles te dynamic speed scaling (DVS) problem [49] and we are going to refer to tree algoritms for te DVS problem, namely, te YDS algoritm wic gives an optimal algoritm for te DVS problem, te online algoritms called BKP and AVR. We first recap te DVS problem and te associated algoritms. In te DVS problem, jobs come wit release time r(j), deadline d(j), and a work requirement p(j). A processor can run at speed s [0, ) and consumes energy in a rate of s α, for some α > 1. Te objective is to complete all jobs by teir deadlines using te minimum total energy. Te main differences of DVS problem to te GRID problem include (i) jobs in DVS can be preempted wile preemption is not allowed in our problem; (ii) as processor speed in DVS can scale, a job can be executed for varying time duration as long as te total work is completed wile in our problem a job must be executed for a fixed duration given as input; (iii) te work requirement p(j) of a job J in DVS can be seen as w(j) (J) for te corresponding job in GRID. Wit te resemblance of te two problems, we make an observation about teir optimal algoritms. Let O D and O G be te optimal algoritm for te DVS and GRID problem, respectively. 4

5 Given a job set J G for te GRID problem, we can convert it into a job set J D for DVS by keeping te release time and deadline for eac job and setting te work requirement of a job in J D to te product of te widt and eigt of te corresponding job in J G. Ten we ave te following observation. Observation 1. Given any scedule S G for J G, we can convert S G into a feasible scedule S D for J D suc tat cost(s D (J D )) cost(s G (J G )); implying tat cost(o D (J D )) cost(o G (J G )). Proof. Consider any feasible scedule S G. At timeslot t, suppose tere are k jobs sceduled and teir sum of eigts is H. Te scedule for S D during timeslot t can be obtained by running te processor at speed H and te jobs time-sare te processor in proportion to teir eigt. Tis results in a feasible scedule wit te same cost and te observation follows. It is known tat te online algoritm AVR for te DVS problem is (2α)α 2 -competitive [49]. Basically, at any time t, AVR runs te processor at a speed wic is te sum of te densities of jobs tat are available at t. By Observation 1, we ave te following corollary. Note tat it is not always possible to convert a feasible scedule for te DVS problem to a feasible scedule for te GRID problem easily. Terefore, te corollary does not immediately solve te GRID problem but as to be sown it provides a way to analyze algoritms for GRID. Corollary 2. For any input J G and te corresponding input J D, cost(avr(j D )) (2α)α 2 cost(o G ). Te online algoritm BKP proposed by Bansal et al. [4] for DVS problem is 8e α -competitive wit respect to total cost. Let l(bkp, t) denote te speed of BKP at time t. l(bkp, t) = max t >t p(t,[et (e 1)t,t )) t t were p(t, I) denotes te total work of jobs J wit I(J) I and r(j) t. Tat is, BKP cooses te interval I = [t, t ) wic as maximal released average total work and (t t ) : (t t) = e : 1 and uses p(t,i ) I /e as te speed at t. By Observation 1 we ave te following corollary: Corollary 3. For any input J G and te corresponding input J D, cost(bkp(j D )) 8e α cost(o(j D )) 8e α cost(o(j G )). Remark: One may consider te non-preemptive DVS problem as te reference of te GRID problem. However, given a job set J G and te corresponding J D, cost(o D (J D )) may not necessarily lower tan cost(o G (J G )), were O D ere is te optimal algoritm for non-preemptive DVS. Tere is an instance sows te optimal cost of GRID is smaller. Te instance contains two jobs. One as release time 0, deadline 3, widt 3 and eigt 1. Te oter as release time 1, deadline 2, widt 1 and eigt 1. Bot jobs can only scedule at teir release time in GRID since teir widts are te same as te lengts of teir feasible intervals. Te optimal cost of GRID is 1 α + 2 α + 1 α = 2 α + 2. Wereas te optimal cost of non-preemptive DVS is 2 α + 2 α = 2 2 α. Tis is because te scedule uses speed 2 and runs te longer job wit 1.5 time units and te sorter job wit 0.5 time units. Te optimal cost of GRID is lower wen α > 1. Terefore, it is unclear ow we may use te results on non-preemptive DVS problem and so we would stick wit te preemptive DVS algoritms. Relating to minimizing maximum cost. Te problem of minimizing maximum cost over time (min-max) as been studied before [50]. We note tat tere is a polynomial time reduction of te decision version of te min-max problem to tat of te min-sum problem (te GRID problem we study in tis paper) for a large enoug α. In particular, one can sow tat wit α > (τ 1)(2 J J (J) + 1), te maximum load would dominate te load in oter timeslots and we would be able to solve te min-max problem if we ave a solution for te min-sum problem on α. On te oter and, minimizing te maximum cost does not necessarily minimize te total cost. For example, consider an input of tree jobs J 1, J 2 and J 3 were I(J 1 ) = [0, 2 α ), (J 1 ) = 1, 5

6 w(j 1 ) = 2 α ; I(J 2 ) = [2 α, 2 α + 1), (J 2 ) = 3, w(j 2 ) = 1; and I(J 3 ) = [0, 2 α+1 ), (J 3 ) = 1, w(j 3 ) = 2 α. Note tat only J 3 as flexibility were it can be sceduled. To minimize te maximum cost over time, we would scedule J 3 to start at time 0 and acieve a maximum load of 3. Tis gives a total cost of 2 α 2 α + 3 α = 4 α + 3 α. However, to minimize te total cost, we would scedule J 3 to start at time 2 α giving a total cost of 2 α + 4 α + (2 α 1) = 4 α + 2 α+1 1, wic is smaller tan 4 α + 3 α wen α > 1. Lower bound on Greedy. In [19], te greedy algoritm tat assigns a job to a timeslot wit te minimum load is considered. It is claimed in te paper tat te greedy algoritm is 2-competitive on te online-list model and for te case were te load of a timeslot t is l(t) 2, jobs are of unit lengt and eigt and te feasible timeslots of a job is a set of (non-contiguous) timeslots tat te job can be assigned to. We sow a counter-example to tis claim and sow tat Greedy is at least 3-competitive. Tis implies tat it is still an open question to derive online algoritms for te GRID problem. Lemma 4. Greedy is no better tan 3-competitive for te online-list model wen α = 2. Proof. Let k be an arbitrarily large integer. Te adversary works in k rounds and all te jobs released are of widt and eigt 1. In te i-t round, were 1 i < k, te adversary releases 2 k i jobs; and in te k-t round (te final one), te adversary releases two jobs. In te first round, te feasible timeslots of eac job released are [1, 2 k ]. In te i-t round, were 2 i k, te feasible timeslots of eac job released are all te timeslots tat Greedy as assigned jobs in te (i 1)-t round. We claim tat te total cost of Greedy is 3 2 k 4 and te total cost of te optimal algoritm is 2 k. Terefore, te competitive ratio of Greedy is arbitrarily close to 3 wit an arbitrarily large integer k. We first analyze Greedy. Since Greedy always assigns to a timeslot wit te minimum load, in te first round, Greedy assigns jobs to 2 k 1 timeslots wit eac job to a different timeslot. Tese 2 k 1 timeslots will be te feasible timeslots for te 2 k 2 jobs in te second round. Using a similar argument, we can see tat in eac round, te number of feasible timeslots is twice te number of jobs released in tat round. In addition, before te i-t round, te load of eac feasible timeslot is i 1 and Greedy adds a load of 1 to eac timeslot tat it assigns a job, making te load become i. Terefore, te total cost of Greedy is k 2 i=1 (i2 2 k i 1 ) + k 2 2 = 3 2 k 4. On te oter and, we can assign jobs released in a round to te timeslots tat are not feasible timeslots for later rounds since in te i-t round, te number of feasible timeslots is 2 k i+1 and te number of jobs released is 2 k i. Terefore, in te optimal scedule, te load of eac timeslot is exactly 1 and te total cost is 2 k. 3 Online algoritm for uniform widt jobs To andle jobs of arbitrary widt and eigt, we first study te case wen jobs ave uniform widt (all jobs ave te same widt w 1). Te proposed algoritm UV (Section 3.2) is based on a furter restricted case of unit widt, i.e., w = 1 (Section 3.1). 3.1 Unit widt and arbitrary eigt In tis section, we consider jobs wit unit widt and arbitrary eigt. We present an online algoritm V wic makes reference to an arbitrary feasible online algoritm for te DVS problem, denoted by R. In particular, we require tat te speed of R remains te same during any integral timeslot, i.e., in [t, t + 1) for all integers t. Note tat wen jobs ave integral release times and deadlines, many known DVS algoritms satisfy tis criteria, including YDS, BKP, and AVR. Recall in Section 2 ow a job set for te GRID problem is converted to a job set for te DVS problem. We simulate a copy of R on te converted job set and denote te speed used by R at t as l(r, t). Our algoritm makes reference to l(r, t) but not te jobs run by R at t. 6

7 Algoritm V. For eac timeslot t, we scedule jobs to start at t suc tat l(v, t) is at least l(r, t) or until all available jobs ave been sceduled. Jobs are cosen in an EDF manner. Analysis. We note tat since V makes decision at integral time and jobs ave unit widt, eac job is completed before any furter sceduling decision is made. In oter words, V is non-preemptive. To analyze te performance of V, we first note tat V gives a feasible scedule (Lemma 5), and ten analyze its competitive ratio (Teorem 7). Lemma 5. V gives a feasible scedule. Proof. Let l(s, I) denote te total work done by scedule S in I. Tat is, l(s, I) = t I l(s, I). According to te algoritm, for all I t = [0, t), l(v, I t ) l(r, I t ). Suppose on te contrary tat V as a job J m missing deadline at t. Tat is, d(j m ) = t but J m is not assigned before t. By te algoritm, for all t [0, t), l(v, t ) l(r, t ) unless tere are less tan l(r, t ) available jobs at t for V. Let t 0 be te last timeslot in [0, t) suc tat l(v, t 0 ) < l(r, t 0 ), r(j m ) > t 0 since all jobs released at or before t 0 ave been assigned. For all t (t 0, t), l(v, t ) l(r, t ). Also, all jobs J wit r(j) t 0 are finised by t and jobs executed in (t 0, t) are tose released after t 0. Consider set J t of jobs wit feasible interval completely inside I = (t 0, t) (note tat J m J t ), l(s, I) J J t(j) for any feasible scedule S. Since V assigns jobs in EDF manner and is not feasible, l(v, I) < J J t (J). It follows tat J J t (J) > l(v, I) l(r, I). It contradicts to te fact tat R is feasible. Hence, V finises all jobs before teir deadlines. Let max (V, t) be te maximum eigt of jobs sceduled at t by V; we set max (V, t) = 0 if V assigns no job at t. We first classify eac timeslot t into two types: (i) max (V, t) < l(r, t), and (ii) max (V, t) l(r, t). We denote by I 1 and I 2 te union of all timeslots of Type (i) and (ii), respectively. Notice tat I 1 and I 2 can be empty and te union of I 1 and I 2 covers te entire time line. Te following lemma bounds te cost of V in eac type of timeslots. Recall tat cost(s, I) denotes te cost of te scedule S over te interval I and cost(s) denotes te cost of te entire scedule. Lemma 6. Te cost of V satisfies te following properties. (i) cost(v, I 1 ) 2 α cost(r); and (ii) cost(v, I 2 ) 2 α cost(o). Proof. (i) By te algoritm, l(v, t) < l(r, t) + max (V, t) 2 l(r, t) for t I 1. It follows tat cost(v, I 1 ) 2 α t I 1 l(r, t) α = 2 α cost(r, I 1 ) 2 α cost(r). (ii) By convexity, cost(o) J (J)α. We can see tat cost(o) t I 2 max (V, t) α. According to te algoritm, l(v, t) < l(r, t) + max (V, t) 2 max (V, t) for t I 2. Hence, cost(v, I 2 ) = t I 2 l(v, t) α 2 α t I 2 max (V, t) α 2 α cost(o). Notice tat cost(v) = cost(v, I 1 ) + cost(v, I 2 ) since I 1 and I 2 ave no overlap. Togeter wit Lemma 6 and Observation 1, we obtain te competitive ratio of V in te following teorem. Teorem 7. Algoritm V is 2 α (R + 1)-competitive, were R is te competitive ratio of te reference DVS algoritm R. Tere are a number of DVS algoritms tat can be used as te reference algoritm. Te only requirement is tat te speed of te reference algoritm witin any integral interval [t, t + 1) for some integer t sould be at most te load of te resulting online algoritm at te corresponding timeslot t. Oterwise, te feasibility of V cannot be guaranteed. Also, since in our online algoritm we make decision at eac integral time t, it means if te load of te reference algoritm at i + is larger tan l(r, i) for some 0 < < 1, our online algoritm migt not be feasible. Te speed of te AVR and YDS algoritm only cange at release times or deadlines of te jobs so it is valid to use AVR or YDS as a reference. Note tat if we use YDS as te reference, te algoritm V is an offline algoritm since YDS is an offline algoritm. Unlike AVR and 7

8 YDS, te speed of BKP witin a timeslot migt increase. Hence, we need to modify te BKP algoritm suc tat it can be used as te reference algoritm. In Lemma 8, we sow tat te speed of BKP in [t, t + 1) is bounded by a constant factor times te speed at t for any time t. Lemma 8. For any integral time t and a constant 0 < < 1, l(bkp, t+ ) (1+e) l(bkp, t) if te release times and deadlines of jobs are integral. Proof. Recall tat te speed of BKP at time t, l(bkp, t) = max I e p(t,i) I were I = [t 1, t 2 ) and (t 2 t 1 ) : (t 2 t) = e : 1. Te proof idea is, consider te interval I cosen by BKP corresponding to t +, we can transform it into anoter interval I wic is one of te interval candidate for t. We sow tat e p(t,i ) 1 I is at least 1+e times of te speed of BKP at t +. Assume tat at time t +, l(bkp, t + ) = e p(t,i) I were I = [t 1, t 2 ) is cosen by BKP. We can construct I = [t 1, t 2) suc tat (t 2 t 1 ) : (t 2 t) = e : 1 by setting t 1 = t 2 e(t 2 t). It is clear tat I I since te two intervals ave te same rigt endpoint and I is longer tan I. In fact, I = e(t 2 t) = e(t 2 (t + )) + e = I + e I + e. Moreover, for any interval candidate, te lengt must be at least 1 if te release times and deadlines of te jobs are integral. Oterwise, te interval contains no jobs and te speed is 0. Hence, I (1 + e) I. By BKP, l(bkp, t) e p(t,i ) I = e p(t+,i ) I. Te later equality olds since tere is no job released between t and t +. Since I I and I (1 + e) I, e p(t+,i ) I e p(t+,i) I e p(t+,i) Hence, l(bkp, t) 1 1+e l(bkp, t + ). (1+e) I. Lemma 8 implies tat, altoug te speeds of BKP cange witin [t, t + 1), te speeds are bounded by (1 + e) times of te speed at t. Hence, we can modify BKP into BKP as follows: at integral time t, te speed of BKP, l(bkp, t) = (1 + e)l(bkp, t); at time t = t + were t is integral and 0 < < 1, l(bkp, t ) = l(bkp, t). By te modification, te speed of BKP remains te same during any integral timeslot, and cost(bkp ) (1 + e) α cost(bkp). As mentioned in Section 2, te BKP algoritm is 8 e α -competitive. On te oter and, V can take an offline DVS algoritm, e.g., te optimal YDS algoritm, as reference and returns an offline scedule. Terefore, we ave te following corollary. Corollary 9. V is 2 α (8 (e + e 2 ) α + 1)-competitive, 2 α ( (2α)α 2 + 1)-competitive, and 2 α 2- approximate wen te algoritm BKP, AVR, and YDS are referenced, respectively. 3.2 Uniform widt and arbitrary eigt In tis section, we consider jobs wit uniform widt w and arbitrary eigt. Te idea of andling uniform widt jobs is to treat tem as if tey were unit widt, owever, tis would mean tat jobs may ave release times or deadlines at non-integral time. To remedy tis, we define a procedure AlignFI to align te feasible intervals (precisely, release times and deadlines) to te new time unit of duration w. Let J be a uniform widt job set. We first define te notion of tigt and loose jobs. A job J is said to be tigt if I(J) < 2w; oterwise, it is loose. Let J T and J L be te disjoint subsets of tigt and loose jobs of J, respectively. We design different strategies for tigt and loose jobs. As to be sown, tigt jobs can be andled easily by starting tem at teir release times. For any loose job, we modify it via Procedure AlignFI suc tat its release time and deadline is a multiple of w. Wit tis alternation, we can treat te jobs as unit widt and make sceduling decisions at time multiple of w. Procedure AlignFI. Given a loose job set J L in wic w(j) = w and I(J) 2 w J J L. We define te procedure AlignFI to transform eac loose job J J L into a job J wit release time and deadline aligned as follows. We denote te resulting job set by J. r(j ) min i 0 {i w i w r(j)}; 8

9 d(j ) max i 0 {i w i w d(j)}. Observation 10. For any job J J L and te corresponding J, (i) 1 3 I(J) < I(J ) I(J) ; (ii) I(J ) w; (iii) I(J ) I(J). Notice tat after AlignFI, te release time and deadline of eac loose job are aligned to timeslot i 1 w and i 2 w for some integers i 1 < i 2. By Observation 10, a feasible scedule of J is also a feasible scedule of J. Furtermore, after AlignFI all jobs are released at time wic is a multiple of w. Hence, te job set J can be treated as job set wit unit widt, were eac unit as duration w instead of 1. As a consequence of altering te feasible intervals, we introduce two additional procedures tat convert associated scedules. Given a scedule S for job set J L, AlignSc converts it to a scedule S for te corresponding job set J. Te oter procedure FreeSc takes a scedule S for a job set J and converts it to a scedule S for J L. Transformation AlignSc. AlignSc transforms S into S by sifting te execution interval of every job J J L. st(s, J ) min{d(j ) w(j ), min i 0 {i w i w st(s, J)}}; et(s, J ) st(s, J ) + w(j ). Observation 11. Consider any scedule S for J L and te scedule S for J constructed by AlignSc. Te following properties old: (i) For any job J J L and te corresponding J, st(j ) > st(j) w and et(j ) < et(j) + w; (ii) S is a feasible scedule for J ; and (iii) At any time t, l(s, t) l(s, t) + l(s, t (w 1)) + l(s, t + (w 1)). Proof. (ii) By AlignSc, st(s, J ) d(j ) w(j ). Also, [st(s, J ), et(s, J )) = w(j ). Hence [st(s, J ), et(s, J )) I(J ). Tat is, S is a feasible scedule for bot J and J. (iii) By (i), st(j ) > st(j) w and et(j ) < et(j) + w for eac J. Hence, for any timeslot t, for eac job J wit [st(s, J), et(s, J)) [t (w 1), t + (w 1)) =, t / [st(s, J ), et(s, J )). On te oter and, consider te jobs J tat [st(j), et(j)) [t (w 1), t + (w 1)). Since [st(j), et(j)) = w, at least one of te timeslots t (w 1), t, or t + (w 1) is in [st(j), et(j)). Hence we can capture l(s, t) by l(s, t) + l(s, t (w 1)) + l(s, t + (w 1)). Corollary 12. Using AlignSc to generate S given S, we ave cost(s ) 3 α cost(s). Proof. By Observation 11 (iii), cost(s ) = t l(s, t) α t (3 l(s, t))α = 3 α cost(s). Lemma 13. cost(o(j )) 3 α cost(o(j L )). Proof. Consider set of loose jobs J L wit uniform widt and te corresponding J. Given O(J L ), tere exists scedule S(J ) generated by AlignSc. By Lemma 12, cost(s(j )) 3 α cost(o(j L )). Hence, cost(o(j )) cost(s(j )) 3 α cost(o(j L )). Transformation FreeSc. FreeSc transforms S into S. st(s, J) st(s, J ); et(s, J) et(s, J ). Te feasibility of S can be easily proved by Observation 10. Lemma 14. Using FreeSc, we ave cost(s) = cost(s ). Proof. Since te execution intervals of J and J are te same, l(s, t) = l(s, t) for all t. Hence cost(s) = cost(s ). 9

10 Online algoritm UV. Te algoritm takes a job set J wit uniform widt w as input and scedules te jobs in J as follows. Let J T be te set of tigt jobs in J and J L be te set of loose jobs in J. 1. For any tigt job J J T, scedule J to start at r(j). 2. Loose jobs in J L are converted to J by AlignFI. For J, we run Algoritm V, wic is defined in Section 3.1, wit BKP as te reference DVS algoritm. Jobs are cosen in an earliest deadline first (EDF) manner. Note tat te decisions of UV can be made online. Analysis of Algoritm UV. We analyze te tigt jobs and loose jobs separately. We first give an observation. Observation 15. For any two job sets J x J y, cost(o(j x )) cost(o(j y )). Proof. Assume on te contrary tat cost(o(j y )) < cost(o(j x )), we can generate a scedule S(J x ) by removing jobs from O(J y ) wic are not in J x. It follows tat cost(s(j x )) cost(o(j y )) < cost(o(j x )), contradicting to te fact tat O(J x ) is optimal for J x. In te following analysis we say tat interval I = [t 1, t 2 ) is a BKP interval of t if t I and (t 2 t 1 ) : (t 2 t) = e : 1. Te next lemma proves te competitive ratio separately for J T and J L. Lemma 16. (i) cost(uv(j T )) 3 α cost(o(j )); (ii) cost(uv(j L )) 6 α (8(e + e 2 ) α + 1) cost(o(j )). Proof. (i) We prove tat any feasible scedule S for tigt jobs is 3 α -competitive. We first extend jobs J J T to J as follows: r(j ) = r(j), d(j ) = d(j), w(j ) = d(j) r(j), and (J ) = (J). Tat is, every job as its widt as te lengt of its feasible interval. We denote te resulting job set by J. Since eac job in J are not siftable, tere is only one feasible scedule for J and it is optimal. Tus, cost(s(j T )) cost(o(j )) for any feasible scedule S for J T. For eac job in J T, te lengt of its feasible interval is at most 2w 1. Hence, we can bound te load at any time t of O(J ) by te loads of constant number of timeslots in S(J T ). Assume tat at timeslot t an extended job J is executed. Tat is, t [r(j ), d(j )) since J is not siftable. Consider te job J corresponding to J, te execution interval of J in any feasible scedule must contains eiter timeslot t (w 1), t, or t + (w 1). Hence we can upper bound te load at any time t in O(J ): l(o(j ), t) l(o(j T ), t (w 1)) + l(o(j T ), t) + l(o(j T ), t + (w 1)). Terefore, cost(s(j T )) cost(o(j )) 3 α cost(o(j T )). (ii) For J L, we apply AlignFI and get J L. We ten run V and get V(J L ), wic can be viewed as a scedule for unit widt jobs. We get S(J L ) = V(J L ) by FreeSc. Hence, cost(uv(j L)) = t l(uv(j L), t) α = t l(s(j L), t) α = t l(v(j L ), t)α = cost(v(j L )). According to Corollary 9, cost(v(j L )) 2α (8 (e + e 2 ) α + 1) cost(o(j L )) by coosing BKP as reference algoritm. Since J L is set of loose jobs wit uniform widt, cost(o(j L )) 3α cost(o(j L )) 3 α cost(o(j )) by Lemma 13 and Observation 15. Hence, cost(uv(j L )) 2 α (8 (e+e 2 ) α +1) 3 α cost(o(j )). Teorem 17. cost(uv(j )) 12 α (8(e + e 2 ) α + 1) cost(o(j )). Proof. By definition, cost(uv(j )) = t l(uv(j ), t)α = t (l(uv(j T), t) + l(uv(j L ), t)) α 2 α 1 t (l(uv(j T), t) α +l(uv(j L ), t) α ) = 2 α 1 (cost(uv(j T ))+cost(uv(j L ))). By Lemma 16, cost(uv(j )) 2 α 1 (3 α +6 α (8(e+e 2 ) α +1)) cost(o(j )) 2 α 6 α (8(e+e 2 ) α +1) cost(o(j )). 10

11 4 Online algoritm for general case In tis section, we present an algoritm G for jobs wit arbitrary widt and eigt. We first transform job set J to a nice job set J (to be defined) and sow tat suc a transformation only increases te cost modestly. Furtermore, we sow tat for any nice job set J, we can bound cost(g(j )) by cost(o(j )) and in turn by cost(o(j )). Ten we can establis te competitive ratio of G. 4.1 Nice job set and transformations A job J is said to be a nice job if w(j) = 2 p, for some non-negative integer p and a job set J is said to be a nice job set if all its jobs are nice jobs. In oter words, te nice job J is in class C p. Procedure Convert. Given a job set J, we define te procedure Convert to transform eac job J J into a nice job J as follows. We denote te resulting nice job set by J. Suppose J is in class C p. We modify its widt, release time and deadline. w(j ) 2 p ; r(j ) r(j); d(j ) r(j ) + max{d(j) r(j), 2 p }. Modifications to r(j ) and d(j ) are due to rounding up te widt. Te observation below follows directly from te definition. Observation 18. For any job J and its nice job J transformed by Convert, (i) I(J) I(J ); (ii) I(J) I(J ) if and only if I(J) < 2 p ; in tis case, den(j) > 1 2 and den(j ) = 1. We ten define two procedures tat transform scedules related to nice job sets. RelaxSc takes a scedule S for a job set J and converts it to a scedule S for te corresponding nice job set J. On te oter and, SrinkSc takes a scedule S for a nice job set J and converts it to a scedule S for J. Transformation RelaxSc. RelaxSc transforms S into S by moving te start and end time of every job J. st(s, J ) = min{d(j ) w(j ), st(s, J)} et(s, J ) = st(s, J ) + w(j ). Observation 19 asserts tat te resulting scedule S is feasible for J wile Lemmas 20 and 21 analyze te load and cost of te scedule. Observation 19. Consider any scedule S for J and te scedule S constructed by RelaxSc for te corresponding J. We ave [st(s, J ), et(s, J )] [r(j ), d(j )]; in oter words, S is a feasible scedule for J. To analyze te load of te scedule S, we consider partial scedule S p S (resp. S p S) wic is for all te jobs of J (resp. J ) in class C p. Intuitively, te load of S p at any time is at most te sum of te load of S p at te current time and 2 p 1 1 timeslots before and after te current time. Lemma 20. At any time t, l(s p, t) l(s p, t) + l(s p, t (2 p 1 1)) + l(s p, t + (2 p 1 1)). Proof. We prove tat for any job J, J contributes to l(s p, t) only if J contributes to eiter l(s p, t), l(s p, t (2 p 1 1)), or l(s p, t + (2 p 1 1)),. Tere are two cases tat J does not contribute to l(s p,q, t (2 p 1 1)) nor l(s p,q, t + (2 p 1 1)): (i) et(j) < t (2 p 1 1) or st(j) > t + (2 p 1 1), and (ii) [st(j), et(j)] (t (2 p 1 1), t + (2 p 1 1)). 11

12 Consider case (i). et(j ) et(j) + (2 p 1 1) and st(j ) st(j) (2 p 1 1). Hence, t / [st(j ), et(j )] if et(j) < t (2 p 1 1) or st(j) > t + (2 p 1 1). Tat is, J does not contribute to l(s p, t). Notice tat if et(j) = t (2 p 1 1) or st(j) = t + (2 p 1 1), J does not necessarily contribute to l(s p, t). We count te contribution for worst case analysis. For case (ii), consider job J wit [st(j), et(j)] (t (2 p 1 1), t + (2 p 1 1)). Since 2 p 1 < w(j) 2 p, t [st(j), et(j)]. Tat is, J contributes to l(s p, t) no matter if J contributes to l(s p, t (2 p 1 1)) or l(s p, t + (2 p 1 1)). By case (i) and (ii), for any job J wit [st(j), et(j)] [t (2 p 1 1), t+(2 p 1 1)] =, J does not contribute to l(s p, t). And for any job J wit [st(j), et(j)] (t (2 p 1 1), t + (2 p 1 1)), J contributes to l(s p, t). Hence, by assuming all jobs at timeslot t (2 p 1 1) or t + (2 p 1 1) contribute to l(s p, t), l(s p, t) is bounded by l(s p, t)+l(s p, t (2 p 1 1))+l(S p, t+(2 p 1 1)). Lemma 21. Using RelaxSc, we ave cost(s p) 3 α cost(s p ). Proof. By Lemma 20, cost(s p) = t l(s p, t) α t (l(s p, t) + l(s p, t (2 p 1 1)) + l(s p, t + (2 p 1 1))) α t (3 l(s p, t)) α = 3 α cost(s p ). Transformation SrinkSc. On te oter and, SrinkSc converts a scedule S for a nice job set J to a scedule S for te corresponding job set J. We set st(s, J) st(s, J ); et(s, J) st(s, J) + w(j), terefore, et(s, J) et(s, J ). Observation 22 asserts tat te resulting scedule S is feasible for J and Lemma 23 analyzes te cost of te scedule. Observation 22. Consider any scedule S for J and scedule S constructed by SrinkSc for te corresponding J. For any J and te corresponding J, we ave (i) [st(s, J), et(s, J)] [st(s, J ), et(s, J )]; (ii) [st(s, J), et(s, J)] [r(j), d(j)]. By Observation 22, we ave te following lemma. Lemma 23. Using SrinkSc, we ave cost(s p ) cost(s p). 4.2 Te online algoritm Online algoritm G. We are now ready to describe te algoritm G for an arbitrary job set J. Wen a job J is released, it is converted to J by Convert and classified into one of te classes C p. Jobs in te same class after Convert (being a uniform-widt job set) are sceduled by UV independently of oter classes. We ten modify te execution time of J in UV to te execution time of J in G by Transformation SrinkSc. Note tat all tese procedures can be done in an online fasion. Using te results in Sections 3 and 4.1, we can compare te cost of G(J ) wit O(J p ) for eac class C p (see Teorem 25). It remains to analyze te cost of O(J p ) and O(J) in te next observation. Observation 24. Consider any job set J, its corresponding job set J and te corresponding job set of eac class J p and J p. (i) cost(o(j p )) 3 α cost(o(j p )); (ii) cost(o(j p )) cost(o(j )). Proof. (i) Given O(J p ), tere exists scedule S(J p ) generated by RelaxSc. By Lemma 21, cost(s(j p )) 3 α cost(o(j p )). Hence, cost(o(j p )) cost(s(j p )) 3 α cost(o(j p )). (ii) Assume on te contrary tat cost(o(j )) < cost(o(j p )), we can generate a scedule S(J p ) by removing jobs from O(J ) wic are not in J p. It follows tat cost(s(j p )) cost(o(j )) < cost(o(j p )), contradicting to te fact tat O(J p ) is optimal for J p. 12

13 Teorem 25. For any job set J, we ave cost(g(j )) (36 log K ) α (8(e + e 2 ) α + 1 ) cost(o(j )), were K = wmax w min. Proof. By definition, cost(g(j )) = t l(g(j ), t)α = t ( log K p=1 l(g(j p ), t)) α. Te latter is at most log K α 1 log K p=1 t l(g(j p), t) α. For eac group of jobs J p, we Convert it to Jp, apply algoritm UV on it, and transform te scedule into a scedule for J p by SrinkSc. Hence, l(g(j p ), t) l(uv(jp ), t) for eac t. It follows tat cost(g(j )) log K α 1 log K p=1 cost(g(j p )) log K α 1 log K p=1 cost(uv(jp )). By Lemma 17 and Observations 24 (i) and 15, cost(uv(jp )) 12 α (8(e + e 2 ) α + 1) cost(o(jp )) 12 α (8(e + e 2 ) α + 1) 3 α cost(o(j p )) 36 α (8(e + e 2 ) α + 1) cost(o(j )). Hence cost(g(j )) 36 α log K α 1 (8(e + e 2 ) α + 1) log K p=1 cost(o(j )) = (36 log K ) α (8(e + e 2 ) α + 1) cost(o(j )). Note tat te logaritm in te competitive ratio comes from te number of classes defined in Section 2. Suppose we cange te definition of classes suc tat class p includes jobs of size in te range ((1 + λ) p 1, (1 + λ) p ] for some λ > 0 and Procedure Convert suc tat te widt of jobs in class C p is round up to (1 + λ) p. Ten, te number of classes becomes log 1+λ K. In addition, te competitive ratio depends on Lemma 20 tat bounds te load at any timeslot by te load of tree oter timeslots. Tis number of timeslots is also affected by te definition of classes. In summary, te following lemma states te competitive ratio for varying λ. Lemma 26. For 0 < λ 0.5, 0.5 < λ 1 and λ > 1, te competitive ratio of our algoritm becomes (12 2 log 1+λ K ) α (8(e + e 2 ) α + 1), (12 3 log 1+λ K ) α (8(e + e 2 ) α + 1), and (12 (2λ + 1) log 1+λ K ) α (8(e + e 2 ) α + 1), respectively. Proof. Te number of classes is log 1+λ K, wic replaces log K in Teorem 25. We note tat tis number decreases as λ increases. In Lemma 20, te load of S p at any time t is bounded by te load of S p at tree timeslots wen λ = 1. We observe tat tis property stays te same for 0.5 < λ 1. Using a similar argument, we can sow tat if λ is smaller and 0 < λ 0.5, ten te number of timeslots involved becomes smaller and equals to 2. Furtermore, wen λ > 1, te number of timeslots increases and equals to 2λ + 1. We note te competitive ratio for λ < 1 is larger tan tat for λ = 1, and te best competitive ratio occurs wen 1 < λ < Lower bound In tis section, we sow lower bounds on competitive ratio for Grid problem wit unit eigt and arbitrary widt by designing an adversary for te problem. Te lower bounds are immediately lower bounds for te general case of Grid problem. Te adversary constructs a set of jobs wit a low cost of offline optimal scedule but a ig cost of any online algoritm A. It generates jobs one by one and assigns release times, deadlines and widts of jobs based on te previously generated jobs. Te start times of jobs sceduled by A will be used for te job generations later. Tis ensures tat A as to put a job on top of all existing jobs and results in a ig energy cost. Meanwile, te adversary will coose an appropriate feasible interval for eac job suc tat an optimal offline algoritm can scedule te job set wit low energy cost. Te following is te description of te adversary. Adversary Λ and job instance J. Given an online algoritm A, a constant α > 1 and a large number x, adversary Λ outputs a set of jobs J consisting of α + 1 jobs. Let J i be te it job of J. Te adversary first computes a widt for eac job before running A. It sets w(j α ) = x, w(j α +1 ) = x 1, and w(j i ) = 3w(J i+1 ) + 1 for 1 i α 1. Ten Λ releases te jobs from J 1 to J α +1 accordingly and computes a release time and a deadline for eac job troug an interaction wit A. For te first job J 1, Λ cooses any release time and deadline 13

14 suc tat d(j 1 ) r(j 1 ) 3w(J 1 ). For te it job J i J for 2 i α + 1 accordingly, Λ sets r(j i ) = st(a, J i 1 ) + 1 and d(j i ) = et(a, J i 1 ). Tis limits A to fewer coices of start times for sceduling a new job. A job can only be sceduled in te execution interval of its previous job by A. On te oter and, no two jobs ave te same release time. Let w max and w min denote by te maximum and minimum widt of jobs respectively, and let O be an optimal offline algoritm for Grid problem. We ave te following results. Lemma 27. cost(o(j )) x 3 α. Proof. By te setting of Λ, we sow tat O can scedule all te jobs J witout overlapping, and te cost of an optimal scedule is just te sum of widts of all te jobs. For any job J i J and i 2, te lengt of its feasible interval is d(j i ) r(j i ) = et(a, J i 1 ) (st(a, J i 1 ) + 1) = w(j i 1 ) 1 = 3w(J i ). Tis means no matter were we scedule a job, at least one of te intervals [r(j i ), st(j i )) and [et(j i ), d(j i )) as lengt at least w(j i ). Algoritm O can scedule te subsequent jobs in te interval wit lengt at least w(j i ) suc tat te subsequent jobs do not overlap wit J i. Tis is because te sum of widts of all te subsequent jobs does not exceed w(j i ). Since tis argument can be applied on all te jobs, tis implies tat all te jobs do not overlap wit eac oter in an optimal scedule. Tus te cost of an optimal scedule is te sum of widts of all te jobs. More precisely, cost(o(j )) = (x 1) + x + (3x + 1) + (3(3x + 1) + 1) w max 2x + 2 3x + 2 9x α 1 x = 2x 3 α 1 2 x 3 α. Teorem 28. For any deterministic online algoritm A for Grid problem wit unit eigt and arbitrary widt, adversary Λ constructs an instance J suc tat (i) for constant α, ( ) cost(a(j )) α + 1 α cost(o(j )) ; 3 and (ii) for arbitrary α, ( cost(a(j )) 1 cost(o(j )) 3 log w ) α max. w min Proof. We first give a lower bound on cost(a(j )) and ten give te lower bounds on te competitive ratio by combining cost(a(j )) wit Lemma 27. (i) By te setting of Λ, all te jobs sceduled by A overlap wit eac oter. For ease of te computation for te cost of A, we only consider te timeslots contained by te execution interval of te last job J α +1. Tus cost(a(j )) (x 1) ( α + 1) α and cost(a(j )) (x 1) ( α + 1)α cost(o(j )) x 3 α ( α as x to be large enoug. (ii) Assume α can be arbitrarily large. We use w max and w min to bound α + 1. According to Lemma 27, we ave w max cost(o(j )) x 3 α, and tus α log 3 w max x log 3 ) α w max 3(x 1) = log w max 3 1. w min Note tat x 3(x 1) if x 2. Terefore, cost(a(j )) (x 1) log α wmax w min. Combining wit Lemma 27, we ave te lower bound on te competitive ratio cost(a(j )) cost(o(j )) (x 1) logα wmax ( w min 1 x 3 α 3 log w ) α max w min as x to be large enoug. 14

15 Corollary 29. For any deterministic online algoritm for Grid problem, te competitive ratio is at least (i) ( α +1 3 ) α for constant α; and (ii) ( 1 wmax 3 log w min ) α for arbitrary α. 5 Online algoritm for uniform eigt jobs In tis section we focus on uniform-eigt jobs of eigt and consider two special cases of te widt. We first consider jobs wit uniform-eigt and unit-widt (Section 5.2) and secondly consider jobs wit agreeable deadlines (Section 5.3). To ease te discussion, we refine a notation we defined before. For any algoritm A for a job set J and a time interval I, we denote by A(J, I) te scedule of A on J over te time interval I. 5.1 Main ideas Te main idea is to make reference to te online algoritm AVR and consider two types of intervals, I > were te average load is iger tan and I were te average load is at most. For te former, we sow tat we can base on te competitive ratio of AVR directly; for te latter, our load could be muc iger tan tat of AVR and in suc case, we compare directly to te optimal algoritm. Combining te two cases, we ave Lemma 30, wic olds for any job set. In Sections 5.2 and 5.3, we sow ow we can use tis lemma to obtain algoritms for te special cases. Notice tat te number avg(t) is te minimum number of jobs needed to make te load at t at least avg(t). Lemma 30. Suppose we ave an algoritm A for a any job set J suc tat for some c and c (i) l(a, t) c avg(t) for all t I >, and (ii) l(a, t) c for all t I. Ten we ave cost(a(j )) ( (4cα)α 2 + c α ) cost(o(j )). Proof. We denote te speed of AVR at t as l(avr, t). We are going to prove tat (a) cost(a(j, I > )) (4cα)α 2 cost(o(j )) and (b) cost(a(j, I )) c α cost(o(j )). Hence, te total cost cost(a(j )) ( (4cα)α 2 + c α ) cost(o(j )) since I > and I are disjoint. (a) We compare l(a, t) to l(avr, t) for eac timeslot t in I >. Te assumption of A means tat l(a, t) c avg(t) < c ( avg(t) + 1) = c (avg(t) + ) 2c avg(t) since avg(t) >. By definition, cost(a(j, I > )) = t I > l(a, t) α t I > (2c avg(t)) α. Recall tat l(avr, t) = avg(t) for eac t. Hence, by Corollary 2, cost(a(j, I > )) (2c) α cost(avr(j, I > )) (2c) α cost(avr(j )) (4cα)α 2 cost(o(j )). (b) Since only jobs wic are available in I can be sceduled at t I, cost(a(j, I )) J:I I w(j) (c ) α J J w(j) (c ) α. By convexity, cost(o(j )) J J w(j) (J)α = J J w(j) α. Hence, cost(a(j, I )) c α cost(o(j )). Adding up te two cost, we ave cost(a(j )) = cost(a(j, I > )) + cost(a(j, I )) ( (4cα)α 2 + c α ) cost(o(j )) and te teorem follows. 5.2 Uniform-eigt and unit-widt In tis section we consider job sets were all jobs ave uniform-eigt and unit-widt, i.e., w(j) = 1 and (J) = for all jobs J. Note tat suc case is a subcase discussed in Section 3.1. Here we illustrate a different approac using te ideas above and describe te algoritm UU for tis case. Te competitive ratio of UU is better tan tat of Algoritm V in Section 3.1 wen α < Algoritm UU. At any time t, coose avg(t) jobs according to te EDF rule and scedule tem to start at t. If tere are fewer jobs available, scedule all available jobs. Te next teorem asserts tat te algoritm gives feasible scedule and states its competitive ratio. 15