Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Chechina, Natalia; King, P.; Trinder, P. (2010)
Publisher: IEEE Computer Society Press
Languages: English
Types: Unknown
Distributed load managers exhibit thrashing where tasks are repeatedly moved between locations due to incomplete global load information. This paper shows that systems of Autonomous Mobile Programs (AMPs) exhibit the same behaviour, identifying two types of redundant movement and terming them greedy effects. AMPs are unusual in that, in place of some external load management system, each AMP periodically recalculates network and program parameters and may independently move to a better execution environment. Load management emerges from the behaviour of collections of AMPs. The paper explores the extent of greedy effects by simulation, and then proposes negotiating AMPs (NAMPs) to ameliorate the problem. We present the design of AMPs with a competitive negotiation scheme (cNAMPs), and compare their performance with AMPs by simulation.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [1] X. Y. Deng, G. J. Michaelson, and P. W. Trinder, “Costdriven autonomous mobility,” Computer Languages Systems and Structures, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 34-59, 2010.
    • [2] N. Chechina, P. King, R. Pooley, and P. Trinder, “Simulating autonomous mobile programs on networks,” in PGNet'09. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool John Moores University, 2009, pp. 201-206.
    • [3] L. M. Ni, C.-W. Xu, and T. B. Gendreau, “A distributed drafting algorithm for load balancing,” IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 1153-1161, 1985.
    • [4] N. Chechina, P. King, and P. Trinder, “Reducing redundant autonomous mobile program movements by negotiation,” Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, Tech. Rep. 0072, 2010.
    • [5] H. Kuolin, “Allocation of processors and files for load balancing in distributed systems,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, USA, 1985.
    • [6] A. Ghafoor and I. Ahmad, “An efficient model of dynamic task scheduling for distributed systems,” in COMPSAC '90. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 1991, pp. 442-447.
    • [7] A. Ross and B. McMillin, “Experimental comparison of bidding and drafting load sharing protocols,” in DMCC '90, vol. 2. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1990, pp. 968-974.
    • [8] M. Livny and M. Melman, “Load balancing in homogeneous broadcast distributed systems,” in Proceedings of the Computer Network Performance Symposium. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 1982, pp. 47-55.
    • [9] T. L. Casavant and J. G. Kuhl, “Analysis of three dynamic distributed load-balancing strategies with varying global information requirements,” in DCS '87. New York, USA: IEEE Press, 1987, pp. 185-192.
    • [10] G. Weiss, Ed., Multiagent Systems. A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Massachusetts, USA: The MIT Press, 1999.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article