Parallel Load Balancing on Constrained Client-Server Topologies

TL;DR

This paper introduces and analyzes a parallel load balancing protocol for client-server networks with sparse, constrained topologies, demonstrating its efficiency and load balancing capabilities similar to dense graph protocols.

Contribution

It presents a simple variant of an existing protocol tailored for almost-regular bipartite graphs with small neighborhoods, extending load balancing results to sparser topologies.

Findings

Protocol achieves constant maximum load with high probability

Parallel completion time is O(log n)

Work complexity remains O(n)

Abstract

We study parallel \emph{Load Balancing} protocols for a client-server distributed model defined as follows. There is a set $\sC$ of $n$ clients and a set $\sS$ of $n$ servers where each client has (at most) a constant number $d \geq 1$ of requests that must be assigned to some server. The client set and the server one are connected to each other via a fixed bipartite graph: the requests of client $v$ can only be sent to the servers in its neighborhood $N(v)$. The goal is to assign every client request so as to minimize the maximum load of the servers. In this setting, efficient parallel protocols are available only for dense topolgies. In particular, a simple symmetric, non-adaptive protocol achieving constant maximum load has been recently introduced by Becchetti et al \cite{BCNPT18} for regular dense bipartite graphs. The parallel completion time is $\bigO(\log n)$ and the overall work is $\bigO(n)$, w.h.p. Motivated by proximity constraints arising in some client-server systems, we devise a simple variant of Becchetti et al's protocol \cite{BCNPT18} and we analyse it over almost-regular bipartite graphs where nodes may have neighborhoods of small size. In detail, we prove that, w.h.p., this new version has a cost equivalent to that of Becchetti et al's protocol (in terms of maximum load, completion time, and work complexity, respectively) on every almost-regular bipartite graph with degree $\Omega(\log^2n)$. Our analysis significantly departs from that in \cite{BCNPT18} for the original protocol and requires to cope with non-trivial stochastic-dependence issues on the random choices of the algorithmic process which are due to the worst-case, sparse topology of the underlying graph.