Upload
rufina
View
17
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
An SAIC Company. Efficient Dissemination of Personalized Information Using Content-Based Multicast (CBM). Rahul Shah*Ravi Jain*Farooq Anjum Dept. Computer ScienceAutonomous Comm. LabApplied Research Rutgers UniversityNTT DoCoMo USA LabsTelcordia - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Efficient Dissemination of Personalized Information Using Content-Based Multicast (CBM)
An SAIC Company
Rahul Shah* Ravi Jain* Farooq Anjum
Dept. Computer Science Autonomous Comm. Lab Applied ResearchRutgers University NTT DoCoMo USA Labs [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
*Work performed while at Applied Research, Telcordia
Ravi Jain / 20-Jun-02 / 2
Outline
Motivation and background Problem definition Simulation results Concluding remarks
Ravi Jain / 20-Jun-02 / 3
Mobile Filters for Efficient Personalized Information Delivery
Users want targeted, personalized information, particularly– as the amount and diversity of information increases, – the capabilities of end devices are limited and resources are scarce
Applications like personalized information delivery to large numbers of users rely on multicast to conserve resources
Traditional network multicast (e.g. IP multicast) – does not consider the content or semantics of the information sent– Management difficult as number of groups increase
Content-Based Multicast (CBM) filters the information being sent down the multicast tree in accordance with the interests of the recipients
Problem: how to place software information filters in response to– the location and interests of the users, and how these change– the additional cost and complexity of the filters
Ravi Jain / 20-Jun-02 / 4
Related work
Multicast– Application layer multicast
Assumes only unicast at the IP layer, while CBM assumes a multicast tree (either at the IP or the application layer)
Examples: Francis, Yoid, 2000; Chu et al., End System Multicast, Sigmetrics 2000; Chawathe et al., Scattercast, 2000
– Publish-subscribe systems Many-many distribution with matching done by brokers in the
network In CBM the brokers form the underlying multicast tree Examples: Aguilera, 1998; Banavar, 1998; Carzaniga, 1998
– Modifications to IP multicast Opyrchal, Minimizing number of multicast groups, Middleware 2000 Wen et al., Use active network approaches, OpenArch 2001
Theoretical work– Classical k-median and facility location problems
Ravi Jain / 20-Jun-02 / 5
Multicast filtering example
• Without filters, all 8 items are sent on all 15 links = 120 traffic units• With filters at all internal nodes, traffic = 47 units• With filters at 3 internal nodes, traffic = 63 units
ContentSource
= Active Filter1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Items
1, 3 1, 5 7,8 3, 6 4 6, 7, 8 3, 8 1, 8 3, 5
1, 3, 5 3, 6, 7, 8 4, 6, 7, 8 1, 3, 5, 8
1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Users
Items desired
Ravi Jain / 20-Jun-02 / 6
Mobile code problem definition Problem 1: Bandwidth optimization problem
– Criterion: Find optimal placement to minimize total bandwidth– Cost model: k-Filters: Allow at most k filters to be used
Problem 2: Delay optimization problem – Criterion: Find optimal placement to minimize mean delivery delay– Cost model: Delay:
Each filter adds a delay D for processing The reduction in link utilization also results in reduction in link delay:
Optimal placement changes as users move or change interests– the filtering code should or could be mobile and – the placement algorithm should be fast
Results:– optimal centralized off-line algorithm for bandwidth optimization. Time
= O(k n2)– optimal centralized off-line algorithm for delay optimization. Time =
O(n2)– Two centralized O(n) heuristics that restrict filter moves – Evaluation using simulations
Ravi Jain / 20-Jun-02 / 7
Filtering algorithm framework
For simplicity, we assume the following framework– 1: The multicast tree has previously been constructed and is
known– 2: Filters can be placed at all internal nodes of the multicast tree
– If not, simply consider the subtree where filters are permitted– 3: Subscriptions propagate from the users to the source
There is a simple list of information items that users can request Subscription changes are batched at the source
– At every batch (time slice) x% of the users change subscription– 4. The source calculates filter placements– 5: The source dispatches filters to the (new) placement
Currently we ignore signaling costs of subscriptions and filter movement because negligible for the applications considered (news clips, video clips, music, etc)
Alternatively could consider that filters are available at all nodes and are only activated/deactivated by signaling messages
Ravi Jain / 20-Jun-02 / 8
Bandwidth minimization problemOptimal centralized algorithm
Dynamic programming recurrence relations– Traffic in the subtree rooted at v, with a filter at v:
T(v, i, p) = f(l) + f(r) + min[ j: 0 j i: T(l, j, l) + T(r, i - j - 1, r) ]– Traffic with no filter at v:
S(v, i, p) = 2 f(p) + min[ j: 0 j i: T(l, j, p) + T(r, i - j, p) ]– Traffic at a leaf node v: T(v, i, p) = S(v, i, p) = 0– Minimum traffic is min[ T(v, k, p), S(v, k, p) ]
• f(x) = Traffic required at node x
• Execution time = O(k n2) n = number of nodes in tree• Time complexity calculated using Tamir (1996)
Model of multicast tree at source
Child of Lowest filteringancestor, pf(p)
f(r)f(l)
T(v, i, p)
i filters, max
j filters
i - (j -1) filters
Node v
f(p)
Ravi Jain / 20-Jun-02 / 9
Simulation results: Filters can be very effective Seven-level complete binary tree (n = 127), with 64 leaves m = 64 messages Uniform subscription: p(i, j) = Prob [ User i subscribes to
message j ] = p
k filters
01,000
2,0003,000
4,0005,000
6,0007,000
8,0009,000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Subscription probability, p
Op
tim
um
To
tal T
raff
ic
(mes
sag
es)
0
3
5
10
15
20
30
63
Ravi Jain / 20-Jun-02 / 10
Interest Locality increases filtering benefits
Locality model: P(i, j) = 1/N if i = j = qr /N else, where r = LCA(i, j)q is a skew parameter inversely proportional to locality
q
0
3,000
6,000
9,000
0 16 32 48 64
Num ber of filters , k
Op
tim
um
To
tal
Tra
ffic
(m
essa
ges
)
1
0.99
0.97
0.95
0.9
0.8
0.7
Effect of locality, q
Ravi Jain / 20-Jun-02 / 11
Bandwidth minimization problemHeuristic centralized algorithm
Importance of node v: I(v) = (f(v) - f(l)) z(l) + (f(v) - f(r)) z(r), wherez(x) = 1, if x has a filter
1 + z(left-child of x) + z(right-child of x), otherwise
z(x) is number of edges in the subtree rooted at x affected by a filter at x
z(l)affectededges
z(r)affectededges
f(v)
f(r)f(l)k filters, max
Node v
Node importance, I = amount by which total
traffic changes by placing a filter there
Execution time = O(n)
Ravi Jain / 20-Jun-02 / 12
Centralized heuristic
Subscriptions propagate up to the source, which– calculates the required flow amount at each edge and
the Importance value of each node– tries the Importance Flip
Imax(v) = max[ v: v does not have a filter: I(v)] Imin(u) = min[ u: u has a filter, I(u)] If Imax(v) > Imin(u), move the filter from u to v
– If the most Important non-filtering node is more important than the least Important filtering node, swap the filter location
– otherwise, tries the Parent-child flip– is allowed to make at most one filter move
The source dispatches one new filter, or a move instruction to one existing filter
Ravi Jain / 20-Jun-02 / 13
k = 15, p = 0.3Algorithm used
5,220
5,230
5,240
5,250
5,260
5,270
5,280
5,290
5,300
- 10 20 30 40 50 60
Trial instance (time unit)
To
tal
traf
fic
(mes
sag
es) opt
heu
init
Code mobility is not useful with uniform subscriptions and static users opt = optimal placement at each trial heu = heuristic re-run at each trial Init = initial placement, kept unchanged
Ravi Jain / 20-Jun-02 / 14
Mobility model
User mobility: Users gradually move from the left subtree to the right subtree– Subscription skew, q– At t = 0, users in left subtree have
p = 0.3 + q, users in right p = 0.3 - q– At t = i, swap probabilities of user i in left subtree with user i in right subtree
p = 0.3 + q p = 0.3 - q
Ravi Jain / 20-Jun-02 / 15
User mobility motivates filter mobility
Subscription skew, q
0
10
20
30
40
0 10 20 30 40
Number of filters
Red
uct
ion
in
tra
ffic
wit
h f
ilte
r m
ob
ilit
y (%
)
0.2
0.1
0
Ravi Jain / 20-Jun-02 / 16
Further work
Theoretical improvements:– More efficient algorithms
Achieves O(n logn) time complexity
Prototype and obtain actual bandwidth costs and delays for filter movement using Aglets technology
A distributed filtering algorithm, where the filters are agents that coordinate with minimal involvement of the source– How to avoid thrashing and loops– How to ensure semi-autonomous agent movements do not
degrade performance Investigate different application domains