flow-level analysis of load balancing in hetnets and ... · flow-level analysis of load balancing...
TRANSCRIPT
Flow-Level Analysis of Load Balancingin HetNets and Dynamic TDD in LTE
Pasi Lassila (joint work with Samuli Aalto,Abdulfetah Khalid and Prajwal Osti)
COMNET DepartmentAalto University, School of ElectricalEngineering
1 / 26HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013
Outline
• Introduction to flow-level models
• Overview of 2 problem settings– Load balancing in HetNets (between one macrocell and
one/many microcells)– Intercell coordination between 2 base stations in Dynamic TDD
• Conclusions
2 / 26HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013
What are flow-level models?
• Flow-level models are used to model the system fromthe point of view of elastic data traffic– Elastic data traffic corresponds to, e.g., TCP file transfers– The transmission rate varies during the lifetime of the flow
• Flow-level models are dynamic– Flows arrive according to some stochastic process (Poisson)– Flows have random service requirements (file sizes)– Instantaneous service rate of a flow depends on state of the
system (e.g., number of other flows)– How this dependence is modeled typically contains idealizations
3 / 26HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013
What are flow-level models?
• Performance at the flow level– Performance is expressed as throughput or flow delay (file
transfer delay)– For example, mean flow delay would describe how long file
transfers on the average last
• Importance– Users do not care about delays of individual packets, but only
about the total time to transmit a file of a given size
• Flow-level models characterize the system at the time-scale where users experience the performance
4 / 26HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013
M/G/1-PS queue
• Consider a single link with constant capacity C– In a single server processor sharing (PS) queue the capacity C of
the server is equally shared between the customers in system– If there are n flows in system each receives service at the rate C /n– Flows are served in parallel (there is no queueing!)– Round robin (RR) service can be approximated by PS when
service quantum in RR is small relative to flow durations (cf. timeslot length in 3G/LTE systems)
• M/G/1-PS queueing model– Arrival process is Poisson with intensity l– Flow sizes X obey a general distribution with mean E[X]– Service discipline is PS– Well-known model with many nice analytical properties (robust)
5 / 26HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013
General goal
• Model wireless systems at flow-level– Involves abstractions (simplifications)
• Objective– To learn what queueing/scheduling theory can teach us about
resource allocation and dynamic traffic
HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013 6 / 26
Scenario
• Single macro cell (index 0)with multiple outband andseparate micro cells(1,…,n)
• No interference betweencells
• Traffic consists of elasticDL data flows
• Resources of each celltime-shared uniformlybetween the active flows
0
2
1…
n
HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013 8 / 26
Queueing Model
• Single macro cell (index 0)with multiple micro cells(1,…,n)
• Traffic: elastic DL data flows• Poisson arrivals in each cell• Generally distributed flow
sizes• Cells modeled as M/G/1-PS
servers• Assumption: Micro cells faster
than the macro cell
0
2
1 …n
ii "³ 0mm
HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013 9 / 26
Dispatching Policy
• Dispatching policy decidesfor each arriving flow(belonging to any traffic class i)whether it should be served by– the ”local” micro cell i or– the ”global” macro cell 0
• Maximal stability region:
0
2
1 …n
010 }0,max{ mmll <-+å =ni ii
HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013 10 / 26
Optimal Dispatching Problem
• Optimal dispatching policyminimizes the mean flowdelay
• Static probabilistic policies– state-independent– analytical/numerical approach– optimal static policy used as a
baseline in performancecomparisons
• Dynamic policies– state-dependent– JSQ, MJSQ, LWL, MP, and FPI– performance evaluation based
on simulations– better performance?
0
2
1 …n
HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013 11 / 26
Traffic Scenarios
• Exp flow sizes (2nd experiment: bounded Pareto)• n = 2 (3rd experiment: n = 2,…,10)• m0 = 1• m1 = m2 = 2 (4th experiment: m1 = m2 = 4)
Scenario Fixed Varied
1 (symmetric) l0 = 0 l1 = l2 = l2 (symmetric) l1 = l2 = 2 l0 = l3 (asym.) l0 = 0, l2 = 2 l1 = l4 (asym.) l1 = 1, l2 = 2 l0 = l
HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013 12 / 26
Conclusions
• All dynamic policies improve significantly the flow-levelperformance compared to the optimal static policy– best performance gain achieved with high load– gain increased when more micro cells
• Among the implemented dynamic policies,– myopic MP appears to be systematically the best;– MP may even be close to optimal in minimizing the mean flow delay;– more robust MJSQ is typically able to achieve almost the same
performance;– FPI policies are not able to give any essential improvements over MJSQ;– classical JSQ typically performs worst
• Performance gain of dynamic polices (except LWL)approximately insensitive with respect to the flow size distribution
HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013 14 / 26
Publications
1. A. Khalid, P. Lassila and S. Aalto, Load Balancing ofElastic Data Traffic in Heterogeneous WirelessNetworks, in Proceedings of 25th InternationalTeletraffic Congress (ITC-25), 2013.
2. A. Khalid, Load Balancing of Elastic Data Traffic inHeterogeneous Wireless Networks, Aalto UniversitySchool of Electrical Engineering, 2013, Master'sThesis.
HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013 15 / 26
Scenario
• Dynamic TDD-LTE– Possible to tune fraction of time used for uplink/downlink in a cell
• Multiple cells– inter-cell interference– downlink-downlink– downlink-uplink– uplink-uplink
• Intercell coordination– Possible to control transmission rate (power) of both cells at fast
time scale
HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013 17 / 26
Model (1)(Basic Setting)• 2 neighboring cells
• 2 classes of users per cell/station– uplink and downlink users
• Symmetric service rates (between stations):– UL service rate:– DL service rates:
HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013 18 / 26
Model (2)(Interference model)• Uplink power << Downlink power• Low downlink interference
• Service rate vectors
HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013 19 / 26
Model (3)
• Traffic assumptions– Poisson arrivals of flows with intensities– Exponential file sizes with mean– Elastic traffic, PS queues with completion rates:
• Four M/G/1-PS queues with coupled service ratesdepending on modes {uu, du, ud, dd}– Objective: Study how much dynamic policies improve
performance (delay) over static (optimal) policies– Literature: MaxWeight policy asymptotically optimal, stochastic
optimality of on/off policy for 2 base stations (but no TDD)
20 / 26HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013
Static policies
• Static (probabilistic) policy: each mode selected withfixed probability– Four independent M/G/1-PS queues
• Maximal stability region
• Optimal static policy– Determine optimal probabilities to minimize delay– Numerically or sometimes explicit result
21 / 26HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013
Dynamic policies
• We define several priority based policies– HU/HD: generalizations of earlier stochastically optimal on/off
policy– E.g., HU is good if uplink rate is high compared with downlink– HU/HD may be unstable sometimes => H3/H4 policies
• Other dynamic policies– Policies based on MDPs (Markov Decision Processes)
• FPI, MDP– Max Weight policy
• MW = Select the mode with the maximum weight• Weight =Σ (service rate) x (queue length)
22 / 26HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013
Stochastic optimality
• Policy p is stochastically optimal if
• Two optimality results
23 / 26HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013
Example from numerical results• Simulations in many scenarios of dynamic policies to
evaluate gain over static optimal policy
24 / 26HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013
Conclusions
• Objective to study achievable gains from dynamiccoordination of two base stations using dynamic TDD
• Priority policies– Can be stochastically optimal but may also run into stability
problems depending on parameters– No unique, robust priority policy
• MW and FPI are robust for all the cases
• In our scenarions dynamic policies perfom better thanthe static optimal policy by as much as 50—60%
25 / 26HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013
Publications
1. P. Osti, S. Aalto and P. Lassila, Optimal dynamic TDDintercell coordination for elastic traffic, 2013,submitted.
2. P. Lassila, A. Penttinen and S. Aalto, Flow-levelmodeling and analysis of dynamic TDD in LTE, inProceedings of Eighth Euro-NF Conference on NextGeneration Internet (NGI 2012), 2012.
3. P. Osti, P. Lassila and S. Aalto, Optimal intercellcoordination for multiple user classes with elastictraffic, in Proceedings of Eighth Euro-NF Conferenceon Next Generation Internet (NGI 2012), 2012.
26 / 26HEWINETS seminar, October 24, 2013