# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

October  2018, 14(4): 1667-1684. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018026

## Selective void creation/filling for variable size packets and multiple wavelengths

 SMACS Research Group, Department of Telecommunications and Information Processing (TELIN), Ghent University, St.-Pietersnieuwstraat 41, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium

Received  August 2017 Published  January 2018

With ever-increasing demand for bandwidth, both optical packet switching and optical burst switching are proposed as alternatives to increase the capacity of optical networks in the future. In these packet-based switching techniques, Fiber Delay Lines (for delay assignments) and wavelength conversion (for channel assignments) are used to avoid contention between contending packets. The involved scheduling algorithms decide on which Fiber Delay Line and wavelength each packet is scheduled in order to maximize performance. For the setting without wavelength conversion we proposed a scheduling algorithm for assigning delays called void-creating algorithm that outperforms existing void filling algorithms for a variety of packet size distributions. This is achieved by selectively delaying packets longer than strictly necessary based on a numerical procedure that assigns a theoretical value to each void based on how likely the void will eventually be filled and thus prove useful. This contribution extends the concept of void-creation to the important case with multiple wavelengths, where also the channel has to be assigned. Results obtained by Monte Carlo simulation show that with our void-creating algorithm the obtainable improvement in various performance measures highly depends on the number of wavelengths present.

Citation: Kurt Van Hautegem, Wouter Rogiest, Herwig Bruneel. Selective void creation/filling for variable size packets and multiple wavelengths. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (4) : 1667-1684. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018026
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
The modelled output port as part of a $K \times M$ optical switch.
An example of a provisional schedule for a single wavelength when the packet size is variable ($B \neq E[B] = D = 1$).
Evolution of the provisional schedule for a single wavelength when the packet size is fixed and equal to the granularity ($B = E[B] = D$).
Life cycles of the voids created by scheduling on the $\bullet$ and $\blacktriangle$ of Fig. 2.
An example of a provisional schedule for fixed packet size and multiple wavelengths ($c = 4$). The G-VF algorithm will choose to minimize the gap by scheduling on position $a$.
An example of a provisional schedule for fixed packet size and multiple wavelengths ($c = 4$) resulting in a possible void creation on the second wavelength.
Maximum gain (i.e., reduction giving rise to performance gain) for different performance measures as a function of the number of wavelengths ($c$).
Performance measures of D-VF for different packet size distributions and a single wavelength.
 D-VF Fixed B= E[B]=D Exponential E[B]=D Uniform on [0, 2D] Uniform on [0.5D, 1.5D] p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 LP 2.1 % 14.5 % 2.6 % 9.1 % 1.9 % 9.8 % 2.2 % 12.9 % LPlength 2.1 % 14.5 % 3.4 % 11.9 % 2.3 % 11.7 % 2.3 % 13.4 % Packet delay 3.0 6.1 2.5 4.1 2.7 4.8 3.0 5.7 Packet gap 0.36 0.42 0.29 0.30 0.33 0.34 0.37 0.39
 D-VF Fixed B= E[B]=D Exponential E[B]=D Uniform on [0, 2D] Uniform on [0.5D, 1.5D] p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 LP 2.1 % 14.5 % 2.6 % 9.1 % 1.9 % 9.8 % 2.2 % 12.9 % LPlength 2.1 % 14.5 % 3.4 % 11.9 % 2.3 % 11.7 % 2.3 % 13.4 % Packet delay 3.0 6.1 2.5 4.1 2.7 4.8 3.0 5.7 Packet gap 0.36 0.42 0.29 0.30 0.33 0.34 0.37 0.39
Optimal thresholds and corresponding performance improvements of the void value threshold algorithm for a single wavelength.
 (A) Optimal thresholds optimal threshold Fixed B= E[B]=D Exponential E[B]=D Uniform on [0, 2D] Uniform on [0.5D, 1.5D] p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 LP 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.5 LPlength 1.0 1.2 2.3 3.0 1.9 2.0 1.3 1.6 Packet delay 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.9 2.0 1.3 1.6 Packet gap 1.2 1.3 3.0 2.3 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.6 (B) Corresponding performance improvements maximum gain Fixed B= E[B]=D Exponential E[B]=D Uniform on [0, 2D] Uniform on [0.5D, 1.5D] p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 LP 54.1 % 36.1 % 4.5 % 6.4 % 5.7 % 6.9 % 28.7 % 19.4 % LPlength 54.1 % 36.1 % 0.2 % 0.1 % 0.6 % 1.9 % 25.0 % 16.5 % Packet delay 16.3 % 16.2 % 0.8 % 3.4 % 1.7 % 3.9 % 8.2 % 8.8 % Packet gap 11.5 % 22.8 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.3 % 1.3 % 4.5 % 10.3 %
 (A) Optimal thresholds optimal threshold Fixed B= E[B]=D Exponential E[B]=D Uniform on [0, 2D] Uniform on [0.5D, 1.5D] p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 LP 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.5 LPlength 1.0 1.2 2.3 3.0 1.9 2.0 1.3 1.6 Packet delay 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.9 2.0 1.3 1.6 Packet gap 1.2 1.3 3.0 2.3 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.6 (B) Corresponding performance improvements maximum gain Fixed B= E[B]=D Exponential E[B]=D Uniform on [0, 2D] Uniform on [0.5D, 1.5D] p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.6 p=0.8 LP 54.1 % 36.1 % 4.5 % 6.4 % 5.7 % 6.9 % 28.7 % 19.4 % LPlength 54.1 % 36.1 % 0.2 % 0.1 % 0.6 % 1.9 % 25.0 % 16.5 % Packet delay 16.3 % 16.2 % 0.8 % 3.4 % 1.7 % 3.9 % 8.2 % 8.8 % Packet gap 11.5 % 22.8 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.3 % 1.3 % 4.5 % 10.3 %
Performance measures of G-VF for a fixed packet size distribution and a varying number of wavelength ($c = 1,2,4,6$ and $8$).
 G-VF c=1 c=2 c=4 c=6 c=8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 LP 2.1 % 14.5 % 22.5 % 0.0 % 4.5 % 13.8 % x 0.1 % 5.7 % x 0.0 % 1.7 % x x 0.3 % LPlength 2.1 % 14.5 % 22.5 % 0.0 % 4.5 % 13.8 % x 0.1 % 5.7 % x 0.0 % 1.7 % x x 0.3 % Packet delay 3.0 6.1 7.1 1.0 4.9 7.1 0.4 1.9 6.2 0.2 1.1 4.5 0.1 0.8 2.8 Packet gap 0.36 0.42 0.42 0.13 0.25 0.28 0.03 0.08 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.05
 G-VF c=1 c=2 c=4 c=6 c=8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 LP 2.1 % 14.5 % 22.5 % 0.0 % 4.5 % 13.8 % x 0.1 % 5.7 % x 0.0 % 1.7 % x x 0.3 % LPlength 2.1 % 14.5 % 22.5 % 0.0 % 4.5 % 13.8 % x 0.1 % 5.7 % x 0.0 % 1.7 % x x 0.3 % Packet delay 3.0 6.1 7.1 1.0 4.9 7.1 0.4 1.9 6.2 0.2 1.1 4.5 0.1 0.8 2.8 Packet gap 0.36 0.42 0.42 0.13 0.25 0.28 0.03 0.08 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.05
Optimal thresholds and corresponding performance improvements of the void value threshold algorithm for a fixed packet size distribution and a varying number of wavelength ($c = 1,2,4,6$ and $8$).
 (A) Optimal thresholds optimal threshold c=1 c=2 c=4 c=6 c=8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 LP 0.9 1.2 1.3 0.7 1.0 0.9 x 0.8 0.7 x 2.3 0.5 x x 1.4 LPlength 0.9 1.2 1.3 0.7 1.0 0.9 x 0.8 0.7 x 2.3 0.5 x x 1.4 Packet delay 0.9 1.2 1.2 to 1.0 0.9 to to 0.7 to to 1.0 to to 2.4 Packet gap 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.8 0.9 0.9 to 0.7 0.7 to to 0.5 to to 0.5 (B) Corresponding performance improvements maximum gain c=1 c=2 c=4 c=6 c=8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 LP 53.5 % 35.9 % 26.0 % 47.2 % 41.3 % 25.6 % x 26.6 % 22.1 % x 86.5 % 12.8 % x x 1.8 % LPlength 53.5 % 35.9 % 26.0 % 47.2 % 41.3 % 25.6 % x 26.6 % 22.1 % x 86.5 % 12.8 % x x 1.8 % Packet delay 16.1 % 16.1 % 12.9 % 0 % 14.0 % 11.1 % 0 % 0 % 8.3 % 0 % 0 % 3.2 % 0 % 0 % 1.0 % Packet gap 11.4 % 22.7 % 24.8 % 3.5 % 19.8 % 20.9 % 0 % 5.2 % 14.3 % 0 % 0 % 7.4 % 0 % 0 % 2.1 %
 (A) Optimal thresholds optimal threshold c=1 c=2 c=4 c=6 c=8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 LP 0.9 1.2 1.3 0.7 1.0 0.9 x 0.8 0.7 x 2.3 0.5 x x 1.4 LPlength 0.9 1.2 1.3 0.7 1.0 0.9 x 0.8 0.7 x 2.3 0.5 x x 1.4 Packet delay 0.9 1.2 1.2 to 1.0 0.9 to to 0.7 to to 1.0 to to 2.4 Packet gap 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.8 0.9 0.9 to 0.7 0.7 to to 0.5 to to 0.5 (B) Corresponding performance improvements maximum gain c=1 c=2 c=4 c=6 c=8 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 p=0.6 p=0.8 p=0.9 LP 53.5 % 35.9 % 26.0 % 47.2 % 41.3 % 25.6 % x 26.6 % 22.1 % x 86.5 % 12.8 % x x 1.8 % LPlength 53.5 % 35.9 % 26.0 % 47.2 % 41.3 % 25.6 % x 26.6 % 22.1 % x 86.5 % 12.8 % x x 1.8 % Packet delay 16.1 % 16.1 % 12.9 % 0 % 14.0 % 11.1 % 0 % 0 % 8.3 % 0 % 0 % 3.2 % 0 % 0 % 1.0 % Packet gap 11.4 % 22.7 % 24.8 % 3.5 % 19.8 % 20.9 % 0 % 5.2 % 14.3 % 0 % 0 % 7.4 % 0 % 0 % 2.1 %
 [1] Min Ji, Xinna Ye, Fangyao Qian, T.C.E. Cheng, Yiwei Jiang. Parallel-machine scheduling in shared manufacturing. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020174 [2] Onur Şimşek, O. Erhun Kundakcioglu. Cost of fairness in agent scheduling for contact centers. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021001 [3] Guo Zhou, Yongquan Zhou, Ruxin Zhao. Hybrid social spider optimization algorithm with differential mutation operator for the job-shop scheduling problem. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (2) : 533-548. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019122 [4] Simone Göttlich, Elisa Iacomini, Thomas Jung. Properties of the LWR model with time delay. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2020  doi: 10.3934/nhm.2020032 [5] Yukihiko Nakata. Existence of a period two solution of a delay differential equation. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (3) : 1103-1110. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020392 [6] Giuseppina Guatteri, Federica Masiero. Stochastic maximum principle for problems with delay with dependence on the past through general measures. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2020  doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020048 [7] Feifei Cheng, Ji Li. Geometric singular perturbation analysis of Degasperis-Procesi equation with distributed delay. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021, 41 (2) : 967-985. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020305 [8] Stefan Ruschel, Serhiy Yanchuk. The spectrum of delay differential equations with multiple hierarchical large delays. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (1) : 151-175. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020321 [9] Chongyang Liu, Meijia Han, Zhaohua Gong, Kok Lay Teo. Robust parameter estimation for constrained time-delay systems with inexact measurements. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (1) : 317-337. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019113 [10] Hai Huang, Xianlong Fu. Optimal control problems for a neutral integro-differential system with infinite delay. Evolution Equations & Control Theory, 2020  doi: 10.3934/eect.2020107 [11] John Mallet-Paret, Roger D. Nussbaum. Asymptotic homogenization for delay-differential equations and a question of analyticity. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2020, 40 (6) : 3789-3812. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020044 [12] Mugen Huang, Moxun Tang, Jianshe Yu, Bo Zheng. A stage structured model of delay differential equations for Aedes mosquito population suppression. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2020, 40 (6) : 3467-3484. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020042 [13] Chang-Yuan Cheng, Shyan-Shiou Chen, Rui-Hua Chen. Delay-induced spiking dynamics in integrate-and-fire neurons. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020363 [14] Guihong Fan, Gail S. K. Wolkowicz. Chaotic dynamics in a simple predator-prey model with discrete delay. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (1) : 191-216. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020263 [15] Wenjun Liu, Hefeng Zhuang. Global attractor for a suspension bridge problem with a nonlinear delay term in the internal feedback. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (2) : 907-942. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020147 [16] Maoli Chen, Xiao Wang, Yicheng Liu. Collision-free flocking for a time-delay system. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (2) : 1223-1241. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020251 [17] Ting Liu, Guo-Bao Zhang. Global stability of traveling waves for a spatially discrete diffusion system with time delay. Electronic Research Archive, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/era.2021003 [18] Xin-Guang Yang, Lu Li, Xingjie Yan, Ling Ding. The structure and stability of pullback attractors for 3D Brinkman-Forchheimer equation with delay. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1395-1418. doi: 10.3934/era.2020074 [19] Jianquan Li, Xin Xie, Dian Zhang, Jia Li, Xiaolin Lin. Qualitative analysis of a simple tumor-immune system with time delay of tumor action. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020341 [20] Soniya Singh, Sumit Arora, Manil T. Mohan, Jaydev Dabas. Approximate controllability of second order impulsive systems with state-dependent delay in Banach spaces. Evolution Equations & Control Theory, 2020  doi: 10.3934/eect.2020103

2019 Impact Factor: 1.366