Re: [e2e] Opportunistic Scheduling.

ksingh@irisa.fr wrote:
> PF scheduler allocates equal share of time slots to all users over long
> term. At the same time it tries to be channel adaptive. Ofcourse, there
> are some assumptions for e.g. it may not hold if a user is moving at 3kmph
> and the another user is moving in car at 90kmph.
>
> You may look at this paper by Borst:
> http://ftp.cwi.nl/CWIreports/PNA/PNA-R0223.pdf
> Among other interesting results like why a strategy "like PF" is optimal,
> on page 5 you will see that a user gets 1/M time slots by symmetry.
> M is the number of users.
>
>

I have a longer answer in preparation. But in the Borst paper, I just see:

"We assume that the feasible rates for the various users vary over time according to some stationary discrete-time stochastic process fR1(t); : : : ;RM(t)g, with Ri(t) representing the feasible rate for user i in time slot t."

The key word is "stationary".

One _can_ make an assumption like this.

However, this does not matsch reality.

It is of course possible for many propositions to find scenarios where the proposition holds. And perhaps we can write those as customer´s duties and customer´s responsitibilies in the terms and conditions of network operators ;-)

In addition, the paper seems to discuss the distribution of rates. Does it discuss, whether a channel is in its local optimum state? Please keep in mind, that the C/I ratio exhibits a periodic behaviour.

Do you need help?
In addition to our free technical library, Pantek provides professional IT services to companies who utilize Open Source software: Learn more about Pantek's Technical Support offerings Place an order for 24/7/365 Technical Support here Learn more about Pantek, who we are, and what we do Chat with a Live Operator Related postel.org Links end2end-interest Request more information about Pantek

However, I will have to read the whole paper, which will take some time.

With respect to your very claim, that the sending time is shared in equal portions to all channels in the long run, this is plausible when the vector of feasible rates moves to some stationary process. However, at least at the moment I´m not convinced that this will hold in the general case.

Simply spoken: The more I read about HSDPA, the more questions I have and the less convincing this whole stuff appears to me.

And the more I read about it, the more rises my strongest objection: HSDPA is an excellent example for what Dave Reed critcized here in the list: My impression is that there is by far to much complexity and "intelligence" in the HSDPA link layer.

Particularly, from an end to end perspective, a link layer should be simple and clearly structured.

Just one observation, I made yesterday: In HSDPA, the shared downlink is split up into 16 channels using CDMA, 15 of which are used for data transport. And a maximum of 4 terminals may be served in the same time slot. I don´t yet understand the reason for this. But I see a large and complex scheduling algorithm.

Simply spoken: From many posts here in the list, particularly from those by David Reed, I learned that networks (and not only networks) shall be kept small and simple. When I see HSDPA, this appears to me large and complex :-)

Detlef

-- 
Detlef Bosau                          Mail:  detlef.bosau@web.de
Galileistrasse 30                     Web:   
http://www.detlef-bosau.de
70565 Stuttgart                       Skype: detlef.bosau
Mobile: +49 172 681 9937

Do you need more help?
In addition to our free technical library, Pantek provides professional IT services to companies who utilize Open Source software: Learn more about Pantek's Technical Support offerings Place an order for 24/7/365 Technical Support here Learn more about Pantek, who we are, and what we do Chat with a Live Operator Related postel.org Links end2end-interest Request more information about Pantek