By Topic

Workconserving vs. non-workconserving packet scheduling: an issue revisited

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$33 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

2 Author(s)
J. Liebeherr ; Dept. of Comput. Sci., Virginia Univ., Charlottesville, VA, USA ; E. Yilmaz

Many packet schedulers for QoS networks are equipped with a rate control mechanism. The function of a rate control mechanism (rate controller) is to buffer packets from flows which exceed their negotiated traffic profile. It has been established that rate controllers lead to reduced buffer requirements at packet switches, and do not increase the worst-case delays in a deterministic service. On the other hand, rate controllers make a scheduler non-workconserving, and, thus, may yield higher average end-to-end delays. In this study, we show that by properly modifying a rate controller, one can design a scheduler which balances buffer requirements against average delays. We present a scheduler, called earliness-based earliest deadline first (EEDF), which achieves such a balancing using a tunable rate control mechanism. In simulation experiments, we compare EEDP with a rate-controlled EDF scheduler and a workconserving version of EDF

Published in:

Quality of Service, 1999. IWQoS '99. 1999 Seventh International Workshop on

Date of Conference: