2012
Dynamic traffic splitting to parallel wireless networks with partial information: a Bayesian approach.
Publication
Publication
Performance Evaluation , Volume 69 p. 41- 52
Contemporary wireless networks are based on a wide range of different technologies
providing overlapping coverage. This offers users a seamless integration of
connectivity by allowing to switch between networks, and opens up a promising
area for boosting the performance of wireless networks. Motivated by this, we
consider a networking environment in which users are able to select between the
available wireless networks to minimize the mean processing times for file downloads
in the presence of background traffic. The information available to the user
is only the total number of jobs in each network, rather than the per-network
numbers of foreground and background jobs. This leads to a complex partial
information decision problem which is the focus of this paper.
We develop and evaluate a Bayesian learning algorithm that optimally splits a
stream of jobs that minimizes the expected sojourn time. The algorithm learns
as the system operates and provides information at each decision and departure
epoch. We evaluate the optimality of the partial information algorithm by comparing
the performance of the algorithm with the “ideal” performance obtained
by solving a Markov decision problem with full state information. To this end,
we have conducted extensive experiments both numerically and in a simulation
testbed with the full wireless protocol stack. The results show that the Bayesian
algorithm has close to optimal performance over a wide range of parameter values.
Additional Metadata | |
---|---|
, , , , , | |
, | |
North-Holland | |
Performance Evaluation | |
Analysis of Distribution Strategies for Concurrent Access in Wireless Communication Networks | |
Organisation | Stochastics |
Bhulai, S., Hoekstra, G., Bosman, J., & van der Mei, R. (2012). Dynamic traffic splitting to parallel wireless networks with partial information: a Bayesian approach. Performance Evaluation, 69, 41–52. |