Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/OJCOMS.2020.2966689, IEEE Open
Journal of the Communications Society
1
Index Terms—Applied queueing theory, delay analysis, end-to-end performance analysis, multi-access edge computing, network
function virtualization, throughput analysis.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
2
µ4
Considering a more static and known environment, researchers VNF 1
VNF 2
Server 3
investigate the VNF placement and resource allocation prob- MEC Server 2
lems [21]–[26]. In these works, the authors formulate the VNF Wireless
Wired
placement problem as Mixed Integer Linear Problem (MILP)
under the assumption of known traffic demand. In addition, Fig. 1: System model: Blue dashed lines group the queues
approximation algorithms have been developed in order to located in the same server.
provide a solution to the VNF placement problem, [27], [28].
Besides the VNF/SDN technologies, Multi-access Edge
Computing (MEC) technology promises a significant improve- for the performance metrics of our interest in order to provide
ment of the networks, especially in terms of latency reduction. insights of how to design a system to satisfy particular network
Task offloading from the mobile devices to MECs has attracted requirements.
considerable attention. For example, the works in [29]–[32]
address the trade-off between the power consumption and II. S YSTEM M ODEL
the task processing delay. The authors in [33], propose an The aim of this work is to study the performance of an end-
optimization model to perform joint slicing of mobile network to-end communication system that consists of different types
and edge computation resources. As VNF and MEC are two of VNFs. We first provide the analysis for a simple end-to-end
strongly connected technologies, the research evolution of the communication system and then, we provide the analysis for
one affects the evolution of the other. To the best of our more general topologies.
knowledge, there are no works providing end-to-end network We consider an end-to-end communication system consist-
performance analysis for a network with MEC deployed and ing of a mobile device, two MEC servers, and one server
operated within the NFV environment. located in the core network as depicted in Fig. 1. A task
traverses a service chain of two consecutive VNFs: VNF 1
and VNF 2. In the considered system, a MEC server, called
B. Contributions
Server 1, is connected with the base station through a wired
In this paper, we investigate a VNF-facilitated end-to-end backhaul link and hosts one copy of VNF 1 as the primary
network where the cooperation between the edge and the core MEC server.1 A secondary MEC server, called Server 2, is
network, and the cooperation among MECs are considered. located nearby and also hosts a copy of VNF 1. Server 2,
As a first step, we model and analyze a simple end-to-end for example, may be located at a peer edge host with spare
communication system which consists of two MEC servers at capacity or at a central office location within a metropolitan
the edge network and one at the core network hosting different area network. We consider the secondary server that acts as a
types of VNFs. We develop a methodology by applying helper of the base station. In particular, we utilize the resources
tools from queueing theory in order to derive approximate of the MEC Server 2 in order to offload traffic from the the
analytical expressions of the performance metrics of interest MEC Server 1. In addition, Server 3 in the core network hosts
such as end-to-end delay, drop rate, and throughput. The VNF 2 and has more advanced computation capabilities than
methodology is based on the decomposion of the system into Servers 1 and 2. The analysis of such system can be used to
smaller subsystems easier to analyze. The information from study the deployment of AR-related applications. For example,
analysis of each subsystem can be used in order to study VNF function can be installed in MEC to map user requests
the performance of the entire system. Since, in reality, there to their corresponding nodes providing contents, while the
are no buffers with infinite capacity, we consider finite size compute-intensive VNFs such as AR or 3D gaming can be
buffers in the servers of our system model. However, the deployed in core networks.
capabilities of the server at the core are considered to be We assume a slotted time system. At each time slot, the
much higher than those of the MEC servers. In order to device transmits a task in form of a packet to a base station
observe the behavior of the system asymptotically, we also over a wireless channel. Because of the presence of fading
investigate, as a subcase, the scenario where the buffers at in the wireless channel, transmissions may face errors. Thus,
core server is infinite. Based on the methodology derived for we assume that a task is successfully transmitted to the base
the simple model, we extend the analysis to a more complex station with a probability p that captures fading, attenuation,
system with a larger number of MEC servers. As shown in the noise, etc. The device attempts for a new task transmission
simulation results, the proposed stochastic model is accurate only if the previous task is successfully received at the base
and indicates a robust behavior even for larger number of
1 For the connection between the servers, we do not consider success
servers. Furthermore, we provide results that show the trade-
probabilities/erasure channel because the connection is wired. However, with
off between the throughput, drop rate, and end-to-end delay. minor modifications of our model we are able to analyze also the case of a
In this work we provide approximate analytical expressions wireless backhaul link.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/OJCOMS.2020.2966689, IEEE Open
Journal of the Communications Society
3
station. The received tasks need to be distributed between the physical decomposition of the whole system into subsystems.
queue for local processing and the queue for transmission Our goal is to analyze parts of the system independently in
to the secondary MEC server. Thus, there are two possible order to make the analysis easier. The interconnection between
routes to pass through the service chain. A flow controller at the servers implies the interconnection between the queues.
the base station decides randomly the routing for each task. This fact allows us to analyze different parts of the whole
With probability α the task is processed by Server 1 first to system even if the corresponding queues belong physically in
be processed by VNF 1, and then forwarded to Server 3 to different servers.
be processed by VNF 2. With probability 1 − α the task is
forwarded to Server 2, to be processed by VNF 1, and then Subsystem 1:
Q1 Q2
forwarded to Server 3 for being processed by VNF 2. Note CPU Tx
µ2
2,6
µ1
that each task can be part of a service that consists of multiple
tasks. Different services may have different sizes. However, Subsystem 2: Q3 Q4
Tx CPU 5
services can be split into different tasks, each one with same µ3 µ4
size. In this work, we focus on the system analysis in terms Q5
of those tasks. However, this assumption allows us to analyze Subsystem 3: 5 Tx 5,6
µ5
the system performance in terms of services. For example, Q6
consider that we have a service that consists of 1000 tasks. Subsystem 4: 2,6
5,6
CPU
µ6
We can estimate the delay of 1000 tasks and then we can sum
up all the delays to provide the delay for the whole service.
Fig. 2: Proposed decomposition.
Each task that arrives at a server first waits in a queue for
being processed by a VNF. Then, after the processing, it is
Since the computation capabilities of the server in the core
stored in the transmission queue, waiting to be forwarded and
are much higher than those of the MEC servers, we consider
processed by the next VNF. Let Qi denote the i-th queue,
the core server as one independent queueing system. In order
where i ∈ K, and K is the set of the queues in the system. Note
to develop a model that couples MEC Server 1 and MEC
that the queues follow an early departure-late arrival model: at
Server 2, we consider as one independent queueing system
the beginning of the slot the departure takes place and a new
the subsystem which consists of Q3 and Q4 . Q5 is considered
arrival can enter the queue at the end of the slot. The queues
as one independent system. We choose to decompose the
for task transmission are Q2 , Q3 , and Q5 , and the queues for
system as described above in order to study the decomposition
task processing are Q1 , Q4 , Q6 . The arrival rates for queues
strategies for deriving: i) a model for the interacting queues
Q1 and Q3 are pα and p(1 − α), respectively. We denote by
within one server, ii) a model for two queues of different
µi , i ∈ K, the service rates of the queues. We assume that the
servers that are interacting, and iii) an individual model for
service times are geometrically distributed.
each queue within the same server. To summarize, we consider
Furthermore, the queues are assumed to have finite buffer.
the following four subsystems: 1) Q1 and Q2 , 2) Q3 and Q4 3)
Let Mi denote the buffer size of each queue i ∈ K. If a queue
Q5 , and 4) Q6 . The performance metrics for the whole system
is full and no task departs at the same time that a new one
are approximated with the analytical expressions derived from
arrives, the new task is dropped and removed from the system.
the subsystems. The accuracy of the approximation is validated
Besides the case presented in Fig. 1, we will consider the case
through simulations in Section VI.
of a scaled-up system in Section V. Note that the described
system model can be considered as an isolated network slice
under the network slicing and MEC technologies. A. Subsystems 1 and 2: Two queues in tandem
The two queues in tandem, Q1 and Q2 , are considered as
one subsystem. The arrival rate for Q1 is: λ1 = pα. The
III. P ERFORMANCE A NALYSIS
Markov chain {(Xn , Yn )} is described by
In this section, we perform the modeling and the perfor-
Pi,j:u,k = Pr {Xn+1 = i, Yn+1 = j | Xn = u, Yn = k} ,
mance analysis that allow us to derive the critical performance
metrics. We model the considered queueing system utilizing where Xn and Yn denote the states (in terms of queue length)
Discrete Time Markov Chain (DTMC). Modeling the whole of Q1 and Q2 at the n-th time slot, respectively; i and j
system as one Markov chain can drive in a quite complicated are referred to as the level i and phase j, respectively. Here,
system difficult to be analyzed in terms of closed-form expres- we follow the notation provided by [34]. The two dimensional
sions. An efficient method to approximate the whole system (2D) Markov chain is a Quasi-Birth-and-Death (QBD) DTMC.
while keeping the analysis complexity low, is the decompo- Therefore, the process can move up and down between the
sition method [34]. According to the decomposition method, levels one at a time because up to one task can arrive and
the whole queueing system is decomposed into subsystems, depart from Q1 .
and each different subsystem is analyzed independently. We The Markov chain is shown in Fig. 3. For example, if the
derive results for each subsystem and then, we utilize them in system is in (0, 0) state then, both Q1 and Q2 contain zero
order to provide analytical results for the whole system. The tasks. The arrows denote the transitions between the states
proposed decomposition for the system in Fig. 1 is shown and the corresponding transition probability. For example, if
in Fig. 2. Note that by decomposition we do not mean the the system is in (0, 0) state then, the probability the system
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
4
b1
λ1 b1 b1 b1 b2
b2 b2 b2 b2
c2 c2 c2 c2
c2
a2
c1
λ1 α2 c1 α2 c1 α2 c1 λ1µ1
c1
α1
1
α1
1µ
α1
λ
a4 α4 α4
a1
a5 a5 α5 α5 α5
λ1µ̄1 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 ... 1,M2 d1
λ1µ1 a3 α3 α3 α3
a7 a7 α7 α7 α7
a2
λ1µ̄1 α2 α6 α2 α2 α6 λ1µ1
a6
a6
a6
1 α1
1µ
α1
a1
α1
λ
α4 α4 α4
α5 α5 α5 α5 α5
λ¯1µ̄1 2,0 2,1 2,2 2,3 ... 2,M2 d1
λ1µ1 α3 α3 α3 α3
α7 α7 α7 α7 α7
λ1µ¯1 α6 α2 α6 α2 α6 α2 α6 α2 α6
α1 α1 α1 α1 λ1µ1
α1
α4 α4 α4
α5 α5 α5 α5 α5
λ¯1µ¯1 3,0 3,1 3,2 3,3 ...
λ1µ1 α3 α3 α3 α3 3,M2 d1
α7 α7 α7 α7 α7
α6 α2 α6 α2
λ1µ¯1 α6 α2 α2 α6 α6
λ1µ1 α1 α1 α1
α1 λ1µ1
α5 α5 α5 α5 α5
...
...
...
...
...
...
λ1µ1 α3 α3 α3 α3
α7 α7
λ1µ¯1 α7 α2 λ1µ1
α7 α2 α7 α6
α6 α2 α6 α6 α6 α
5
α1 α1 α1
α1 α1
µ2µ̄1 µ2µ̄1 µ2µ̄1 µ2µ¯1 µ2µ̄1
µ¯1 M1,0 M1,1 M1,2 M1,3 ... M1, M2
λ1µ1
α3 α3 α3 α3
d3 d3 d3
d2
Fig. 3: 2D Markov chain for the system with two queues in tandem of Subsystem 1 shown in
Fig. 2.
... ...
... ... ...
1 b2 b1
b2 b 1 c2 c1
.. .. c2 c1
.. ...
...
. . .
b2 b 1 c2 c1
.. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . .
...
.. .. .. ..
...
. . . . .. ..
. .
.. .. ..
. . .
...
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/OJCOMS.2020.2966689, IEEE Open
Journal of the Communications Society
6
λ̄5µ̄5 + λ5
λ̄5 λ5µ5 + λ̄5µ̄5 λ5µ5 + λ̄5µ̄5
λ5 λ5µ̄5 λ5µ̄5 ... λ5µ̄5
0 1 2 M5
λ̄5µ5 λ̄5µ5 λ̄5µ5 λ̄5µ5
Fig. 5: Markov chain for Q5 .
be considered independent stochastic processes. The arrival D. Subsystem 4: Q6 with infinite buffer size
rates for Q6 that occur due to Q2 and Q5 are λ6,2 = In this subsection, we study the case where the buffer in the
Pr {Q2 > 0} µ2 , and λ6,5 = Pr {Q5 > 0} µ5 , respectively. core server has infinite size. Since the capabilities of the server
The arrival rate of Q6 is given by λ6 = λ6,2 + λ6,5 . We model in the core can be much higher than those of the MEC server
the system as a Markov chain as shown in Fig. 6, where and therefore, the buffer has a very large capacity, we are
p00 = λ̄6,2 λ̄6,5 , p01 = λ6,2 λ̄6,5 + λ6,5 λ̄6,2 , p02 = λ6,2 λ6,5 , interested in studying the stability conditions of such systems.
b1 = λ̄6,5 λ̄6,2 µ̄6 + λ̄6,5 λ6,2 µ6 + λ6,5 λ̄6,2 µ6 , We model the subsystem as one Markov chain. The transition
matrix that describes the Markov chain is shown below
b2 = λ6,2 λ̄6,5 µ̄6 + λ̄6,2 λ6,5 µ̄6 + λ6,2 λ6,5 µ6 ,
a0 b0 0 0 ···
b3 = λ6,2 λ6,5 µ̄6 , b0 = λ̄6,2 λ̄6,5 µ6 , a1 b1 b0 0 · · ·
b = λ̄6,2 λ6,5 µ6 + λ6,2 λ̄6,5 µ6 + λ̄6,2 λ̄6,5 µ̄6 .
a2 b2 b1 b0 · · ·
P4 = 0 b3 b2 b1 · · · , (4)
The transition matrix that describes the Markov chain above
is shown below
0 b3 b2 b1
.. .. .. ..
p00 p01 p01 . . . .
b0 b1 b2 b3
where a0 = p00 , a1 = p01 , a2 = p02 . The transition
b0 b1 b2 b3
matrix is a lower Hessenberg matrix. The general expres-
P4 =
. .. .. .. .. .
. . . sion for the equilibrium equations for the states is given by
(4) (4)
b0 b1 b2 b3
the i-th term in the following equation: πi = ai π0 +
b0 b1 b2 + b3 i+1
(4)
P
bi−j πj . For the DTMC with infinite state space, we
b0 b1 + b2 + b3 j=1
(2) apply z-tansform approach to solve the state equations. The
In order to construct the transition matrix P6 , we need only z-transform for the state transition probabilities ai and bi
2 3
to calculate the probabilities described above. We denote ai z −i and B(z) = bi z −i , respectively.
P P
are A(z) =
(4)
h steady statei distribution of Subsystem 4 by π
the = i=0 i=0
(4) (4) (4) The z-transform for the steady state distribution vector π (4)
π0 , π1 , . . . . To derive π , we solve the following linear ∞
(4) (4) −1 A(z)−B(z)
πi z −i = π0 z z−1
P
system of equations is Π(z) = −B(z) . The solution
i=0
0
(4) (4) (4)
π (4)
P4 = π (4)
,π (4)
1 = 1. (3) for πi is given by π0 = 1+B1+B (1)
0 (1)−A0 (1) , πi = ci +
m
We observe from (3) that π (4) is the eigenvector of the rj (pj )(i−1) , i > 0, where r, p, and c are the residues,
P
transition matrix for λ = 1. Therefore, we can use eigenvalue j=1
poles, and directs terms, respectively. Since Q6 has infinite
decomposition (EVD) in order to find the eigenvectors of
buffer size, we need to characterize the conditions under which
the matrix. After applying EVD, the transition matrix can
the queue is stable. Stability is important since it implies finite
be written as P(4) = QΛQ−1 , where Q = [q1 , . . . qn ]
queueing delay. A definition of queue stability is shown below
are the eigenvectors, and matrix Λ contains the eigenvalues
[35].
in its diagonal. The eigenvector that corresponds to the the
eigenvalue that has value equal to one, is the steady state Definition 1. Denote by Qi (t) the length of queue i at the
distribution. beginning of time slot t. The queue is said to be stable if
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/OJCOMS.2020.2966689, IEEE Open
Journal of the Communications Society
7
p02 b3
b
p00 b1 b1 b2
p01 b2 b2
0 1 2 ... M6
b0 b0 b0 b0
Fig. 6: Markov chain for Q6 .
lim Pr {Qi (t) < x} = F (x) and lim F (x) = 1. system drop rate and average number of tasks in the system
t→∞ x→∞
that are necessary metrics for analyzing the throughput and
The corollary consequence of the previous definition is the delay of the system. We utilize the results of the previous
Loynes’ theorem [36] that states: if the arrival and service section in order to obtain the corresponding expressions.
processes of a queue are strictly jointly stationary and the
average arrival rate is less than the average service rate, then
the queue is stable. Therefore, Q6 is stable if and only if the A. Drop rate and average queue length
following inequality holds: λ6 < µ6 . The probabilities to have a dropped task at each time slot
Remark. Since the stationary distributions of the presented for Q1 − Q5 are shown respectively below
Markov chains have been calculated, we can also obtain M2 M1
(1) (1)
X X
the distributions of the queue sizes. Thus, we can provide PD1 = λ1 µ̄1 πM1 ,j , PD2 = λ2 µ̄2 πi,M2 ,
the probability that a queue size goes beyond a congestion j=0 i=1
limit. For example, consider C as the congestion limit for M4 M3
(2) (2)
X X
Q5 , the congestion violation probability is calculated as PD3 = λ3 µ̄3 πM3 ,j , PD4 = λ4 µ̄4 πi,M4 ,
M
P5 (3) j=0 i=1
Pr {Q5 > C} = πi .
(3)
i=C+1 PD5 = λ5 µ̄5 πM5 .
E. Complexity of the proposed method For the case of Q6 , drops can occur when Q6 is on (M6 )th or
(M6 − 1)th state. The drop rate of Q6 is shown below
In the proposed method described above, the largest system
is the one with 2D Markov chain. In particular, Subsystems 1 (4) (4)
PD6 = p02 (1 − µ6 )πM6 −1 + (p01 + 2p02 )πM6 (1 − µ6 ). (5)
and 2. As a first step, we construct the transition probability
matrix of the 2D Markov chain. In order to obtain the transition The average length of each queue is given by
probability, we construct each of its submatrices. In particular, M1 X
M2 M2 X
M1 M3 X
M4
B, C, A0 , A1 , A2 . The dimension of the submatrices is (1) (1) (2)
X X X
Q̄1 = πi,j i, Q̄2 = πi,j j, Q̄3 = πi,j i,
(M2 + 1) × (M2 + 1). Since we perform (M2 + 1) × (M2 + 1) i=0 j=0 j=0 i=0 i=0 j=0
multiplications to construct those submatrices, the complexity M3
M4 X M5 M6
is O((M2 + 1)2 ). The second step is to compute the steady (2) (3) (4)
X X X
Q̄4 = πi,j j, Q̄5 = πi i, Q̄6 = πi i.
state distribution of the 2D Markov chain. In order to obtain j=0 i=0 i=0 i=0
the steady state distribution of the system, we apply EVD
to the transition matrix. The computational complexity of Therefore, the system drop rate and the average num-
applying EVD or singular valued decomposition (SVD) is ber
P of tasks in theP system can be described as PD =
O(m3 ) in an m × m square matrix [37]. Therefore, the PDi and Q̄ = Q̄i , respectively.
i∈K i∈K
computational cost for calculating the steady state distribution
is O(((M1 + 1)(M2 + 1))3 ).
Alternatively, if the system is modeled as a single Markov B. Delay and throughput analysis
chain, even the complexity of representing the Markov chain We denote by Ti the throughput of each queue i. Since
is quite high. For example, if we have a system with 10 queues we consider finite buffers, and consequently task drops, the
in tandem, we need to construct a 10D Markov chain that itself throughput of each queue as well as system throughput depend
is a quite complex task. Instead, we can use the decomposition on both the arrival and drop rate. Therefore, the throughput
method to reduce the complexity. To this end, we can have 5 for Q1 − Q6 is calculated as
subsystems with 5 corresponding Markov chains and directly
apply the proposed methodology to obtain the steady state Ti = λi − PDi , ∀i ∈ K, (6)
distributions. that is equivalent to the effective arrival rate of each queue.
In order to derive the per task average delay expression,
IV. K EY P ERFORMANCE M ETRICS we first derive the expression of task average delay for
In this section, we provide analytical expressions of the each queue that includes both the queueing and transmission
performance metrics of our interests. First, we calculate the delay. We denote by Di , the average per task delay for each
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
8
VNF 1
Primary MEC server
Flow ↵1 Q1 Q2
Controller CPU Tx
p1 µ1 µ2
1 ↵1 Q4
Q3 Q5
Tx CPU Tx
µ3 µ4 µ5 CPUs
VNF 1 Q6 1
Secondary MEC server µ6,1
VNF 1 2
Primary MEC server µ6,2
2 Q7 Q8
Flow ↵2
Controller CPU Tx
p2 µ7 µ8
1 ↵2 Core server
Q9 Q10 Q11
Tx CPU Tx
µ9 µ10 µ11
VNF 1
Secondary MEC server
Fig. 7: Two user devices transmit tasks to two primary MEC servers (locating at base stations) respectively, assuming that
there are two CPUs in the core server.
queue. We utilize the Little’s theorem [38] and we derive the rate of Q6 that depends on the throughput of Q2 , Q5 , Q8 , and
corresponding expressions as shown below Q11 . The arrival rates of Q6 that occur due to Q2 , Q5 , Q8 ,
and Q11 are λ6,2 = Pr {Q2 > 0} µ2 , λ6,5 = Pr {Q5 > 0} µ5 ,
Q̄i 1
Di = + , ∀i ∈ K. (7) λ6,8 = Pr {Q8 > 0} µ8 , and λ6,11 = Pr {Q11 > 0} µ11 , re-
Ti µi spectively. Furthermore, we assume that the service time are
Finally, the per task average delay is calculated as identically geometrically distributed. Therefore, µ6,1 = µ6,2
and we set µ6,1 = µ6,2 = µ. Let X be a random variable that
Dsys = α(D1 + D2 ) + (1 − α)(D3 + D4 + D5 ) + D6 . (8) represents the number of departures at each time slot. Given
that the queue is non-empty, X follows a binomial distribution
V. S CALED -U P S YSTEM with success probability µ. The Probability Mass Function
(PMF) is given by Pr {X = k} = nk µk (1 − µ)n−k , where
In this section, we explain in details how the analysis that
is shown above can be used in general cases of multiple n is the number of cores, and k is the number of departures
user devices communicating to multiple base stations that are in one slot. In our case, n = 2, and k ≤ 2. Therefore, we
connected to the core server. We provide the analysis and can easily calculate the probabilities to have k departures at
methodology for two base stations. The same methodology can each time slot. We model this subsystem as one Markov chain.
be applied for a system with arbitrary number of base stations. The corresponding transition matrix is shown in (9), where the
However, the expressions will be significantly involved with- elements of the matrix are calculated in Appendix A.
out providing any meaningful insights. We analyze the system Let i and j be the i-th row and j-th column of the
that is shown in Fig. 7, by following the same methodology transition matrix in (9), respectively. We observe that the
in order to derive the approximate analytical expressions: we transition matrix has repeated elements from the third row to
decompose the system into subsystems and analyze each sub- the (M6 −Amax +1)th row, where Amax is the maximum number
system independently. Furthermore, we consider that the server of tasks that can arrive in Q6 at each time slot. Therefore
in the core has two CPUs. Therefore, the number of departures for the system above, Amax = 4. Thus, after calculating
is up to two tasks per time slot. The number of arrivals can be the transition probabilities for the first three rows, it is easy
up to four tasks per time slot.3 We decompose the system into to construct the transition matrix without calculating each
seven individual subsystems: 1) Q1 and Q2 , 2) Q3 and Q4 , 3) element independently.
Q5 , 4) Q6 , 5) Q7 and Q8 , 6) Q9 and Q10 , and 7) Q11 . For the In order to derive analytical expressions for key performance
subsystems 1−3 and 5−7, we apply the analysis that is shown metrics, we need to calculate the steady state distribution of
in Sections III-IV. For Subsystem 4, we provide the structure the Markov chain of Q6 . We apply EVD to derive the steady
of the transition matrix in below. First, we define the arrival state distribution and follow the same methodology introduced
3 The same holds if we have n arrivals per time slot and the core server
in Section III.
has m cpus. After obtaining the steady state distribution, we can calcu-
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/OJCOMS.2020.2966689, IEEE Open
Journal of the Communications Society
9
p00 p01 p02 p03 p04
p10 p11 p12 p13 p14 p15
b6 b5 b4 b3 b2 b1 b0
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . .
P6 =
b6 b5 b4 b3 b2 b1 b0
(9)
b6 b5 b4 b3 b2 b1 b0
b6 b5 b4 b3 b2 b0 + b1
b6 b5 b4 b3 b2 + b1 + b0
b6 b5 b4 b3 + b2 + b1 + b0
b6 b5 b4 + b3 + b2 + b1 + b0
late the drop rate of Q6 . In this case, at each time slot, more respectively. Finally, the per task average delay is calculated
than one task can be dropped. The reason is because more as
than one task can arrive at each time slot. Drops occur when
Dsys = p1 A1 + p2 A2 + D6 . (17)
Q6 has less than four vacant positions. This corresponds to the
(M6 −3)th state. To summarize, drops occur when Q6 is on the VI. N UMERICAL AND S IMULATION R ESULTS
(M6 − 3)th , (M6 − 2)th , (M6 − 1)th , or (M6 )th state. Below, we
calculate the drop rate given that Q6 is on a particular state. In this section, we evaluate the performance of our ap-
(4) (4)
proximated model by comparing the analytical and simulation
PD6 |Q6 =M6 = p01 πM6 (1 − µ)2 + 2p02 πM 6 (1 − µ)2 results. We study the performance of the system with one
(4) (4) base station by showing how different parameters and routing
+ p02 πM6 2 × µ(1 − µ) + 3p03 πM 6 (1 − µ)2
(4) (4)
decisions affect the system performance in terms of delay,
+ 2p03 πM6 2µ(1 − µ) + p03 πM6 µ2 throughput, and drop rate. Furthermore, we study the perfor-
(4) (4)
+ 4p04 πM6 (1 − µ)2 + 3p04 πM6 2(1 − µ)µ mance of a system with two base stations and the performance
(4) of a system with multiple servers and VNFs. Our goal is
+ 2p04 πM6 µ2 , (10) to evaluate the performance of our approximation model for
larger systems and provide insights on the operation of the
considered setup. We developed a MATLAB-based behavioral
(4) (4)
PD6 |Q6 =M6 −1 = p02 πM6 −1 (1 − µ)2 + 2p03 πM6 −1 (1 − µ)2 simulator and each case run for 106 time slots for each case.
(4)
+ p03 πM6 −1 2(1 − µ)µ
(4) (4)
A. The one base station case
+ 3p04 πM6 −1 (1 − µ)2 + 2p04 πM6 −1 2(1 − µ)µ
1) Effect of the routing decision on the system performance
(4)
+ p04 πM6 −1 µ2 , (11) - analytical vs simulation results
In Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, we provide results that show how dif-
ferent routing decisions affect the performance of the system
(4)
PD6 |Q6 =M6 −2 = p03 πM6 −2 (1 − µ)2 + 2p04 πM6 −2 2(1 − µ)µ
(4) for different settings of parameters µi , i = 1, 2, . . . , 5 . We
(4)
also compare the simulation results with those of analytical in
+ p04 πM6 −2 µ2 , (12) order to evaluate the performance of our approximated model.
In the first case depicted in Fig. 8a, the capabilities of the
MEC Server 1 in terms of service rates are lower than those
(4)
PD6 |Q6 =M6 −3 = p04 πM6 −3 (1 − µ)2 . (13) of the MEC server 2. We observe that the optimal values of
throughput and delay are achieved for values of α that are
Finally, the total drop rate of Q6 is shown below
close to 0.2. The value of α that minimizes delay, it does not
PD6 = PD6 |Q6 =M6 −3 + PD6 |Q6 =M6 −2 + PD6 |Q6 =M6 −1 necessarily maximize the throughput. For larger values of drop
(14) rates, we may have shorter delay of the system but smaller
throughput as well. In Fig. 8, we observe results for smaller
We derive the throughput and delay for each queue by using capabilities of the MEC server 2. In Fig. 9, the capabilities of
the equations in (6), (7). The average delay that arrives in the the MEC servers are identical. We observe that the maximum
first and the second base station are described below throughput is achieved for α = 0.5. However, the optimal
DBS1 = α1 (D1 + D2 ) + (1 − α1 )(D3 + D4 + D5 ) +D6 , α in terms of end-to-end delay is different. The value of α
| {z } that minimizes the delay is around 0.65. The flow controller
A1
(15) forwards larger amount of traffic to the first flow. This strategy
minimizes the delay because the tasks have to traverse a
DBS2 = α2 (D7 + D8 ) + (1 − α2 )(D9 + D10 + D11 ) +D6 ,
| {z } smaller amount of queues and therefore, face shorter waiting
A2 times. However, this has an impact on the system performance
(16) in terms of drop rate and therefore, the system throughput.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/OJCOMS.2020.2966689, IEEE Open
Journal of the Communications Society
10
80 0.8 0.8
75
0.7 0.7
70
0.8
65 0.6 0.6
0.6
60
0.5 0.4 0.5
55
45 0 1
0.3 1 0.3
40
0.5 0.5
35 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0 0
110 0.8
100
0.7 0.7
0.8
90
70 0.4
0.5 0.5
60
0.2
50 0.4 0.4
0
40 1
0.3 1 0.3
30
0.5
0.5
20 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0 0
100
55 0.75 150 90
80
0.7 100
70
50
0.65 60
50
50
0.6
45 0 40
1
0.55 1
30
0.5 0.5
20
0.5
40
0 0
0.45
(c) System delay.
35 0.4
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Fig. 10: Objective: To maximize the system throughput.
µ2 = µ4 = µ5 = 0.5, µ6 = 0.95, p = 0.8, Mi = 10 for
Fig. 9: Effect of routing decision on the system performance. 1 ≤ i ≤ 5, M6 = 100.
µi = 0.5 for 1 ≤ i ≤ 5 , µ6 = 1, p = 0.8, Mi = 10 for
1 ≤ i ≤ 5, M6 = 100.
to maximize the throughput in small buffered systems. In Fig.
10, we provide results that show the optimal routing decisions
2) Effect of µ1 and µ3 on the system throughput in systems and the corresponding achieved throughput. The service rates
with small buffer size of Q2 , Q4 and Q5 are fixed. We find the optimal routing
In this subsection, we provide results for the performance of decisions by applying exhaustive search for different values of
the system in terms of throughput. In this case, our objective is µ1 and µ3 . In Fig. 10a, we show the optimal routing decisions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/OJCOMS.2020.2966689, IEEE Open
Journal of the Communications Society
11
traffic is split into two flows and the router achieves a balance
0.6
between them. In Fig. 10b, we provide results that show the
optimal achieved throughput for different values of µ1 and µ3 . 0.5 0.5
Note that the maximum achievable throughput is equal to the
0.4
arrival rate, i.e., 0.8. However, the maximum throughput is
not achieved for this setup because of limited buffer capacity. 0
0.3
1
We observe that even for large values of the service rates, 1
the throughput is close to the arrival rate. This indicates that 0.5
0.2
0.5
buffers with higher capacities are required in order to achieve
0.1
a higher maximum throughput. 0 0
3) Effect of µ1 and µ3 on the system delay in systems with
large buffer size (a) Optimal values of α.
In this subsection, we provide results that show the per-
formance of the system in terms of delay. In this case, we
0.6
minimize the delay in systems with large buffer size by
selecting the optimal values of α as shown in Fig. 11. In
0.5
addition, the optimal values of α are depicted in Fig. 11a.
0.8
We observe that when µ1 = µ3 , the optimal routing decision
is to split the traffic into the two flows equally, i.e., α = 0.5. 0.6 0.4
between the two flows. There are two reasons that explain this 0.2
phenomenon. The first is that even if the capabilities of one 0
0.2
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
12
µ = 0.9
0.8 0.6
0.6
200
0.7 0.5 0.5
0.6 150
0.4 0.4
0.5
0.3 0.3
100
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3 50
µ = 0.11 0.1
0.1
0.2 M = 42
0 0
M =2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.1 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
(a) Performance of BS1.
(a) Performance region.
0.52 120
µ = 0.73
µ = 0.57
0.82
µ = 0.49
0.5
5
0.4
100
µ=
0.8 1 0.6
µ = 0.4 0.48
0.78 0.46
0.5 80
µ = 0.39
0.76 0.44
M = 42
0.4 0.42 60
0.74
0.4
0.72 0.3
40
0.38
0.7 0.2 0.36
20
0.68 0.34
0.1
M = 10
0.66 0.32 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0 50 100 150
(b) Effect of traffic level in BS1 on the performance of BS2.
(b) Performance region of our interest.
Fig. 14: Throughput vs. delay performance. p2 = 0.5,
Fig. 12: Performance region. µ3 = µ4 = µ5 = µ, µ6 = 1, µi = 0.5, ∀i, Mi = 50 for 1 ≤ i ≤ 5 and 7 ≤ i ≤ 11.
p = 0.8. Mi = M for 1 ≤ i ≤ 5, M6 = 100. M6 = 100.
2 140 increases. It is easy to see that the analytical results are close
1.8 to the simulation ones which validates the accuracy of the
120 proposed model. In Fig. 14, we provide results that show the
1.6
performance of each base station for different traffic volumes
1.4 100 of BS1. In particular, in Fig. 14a, we observe the trade-off
1.2 between the throughput and delay of BS1. We see that as
80
1
the arrival rate increases, the throughput of BS1 increases.
However, the throughput of BS1 is not equal to the arrival
0.8 60
rate for large values of the arrival rate because of the task
0.6 drops.
40
0.4 In Fig. 14b, we provide results that show the trade-off
between throughput and delay of BS2 as the arrival rate of
0.2 20
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 BS1 increases. Our goal is to show how the traffic volume of
BS1 affects the performance of BS2. It is clear that when the
Fig. 13: System throughput vs. system delay. µi = 0.6 for arrival rate of BS1 is larger than the arrival rate of BS2, the
1 ≤ i ≤ 5 and 7 ≤ i ≤ 11. µ = 1. M6 = 100, Mi = 50, for performance of BS2 decreases significantly.
1 ≤ i ≤ 5 and 7 ≤ i ≤ 11. In Fig. 15, we provide results that show how the traffic
volume of BS2 affects the traffic of BS1. In this case, the
service rates are higher than the previous case of Fig. 14. We
In Fig. 13, the results show the trade-off between system observe that under this setup, the one system affects the other
throughput and system delay as the traffic of both base stations only in terms of delay. The maximum throughput of BS1 is
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/OJCOMS.2020.2966689, IEEE Open
Journal of the Communications Society
13
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
14
p04 p15 b0
p03 b0 b0
b1 b1 b0
b1
p00 p11 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4
p01 p10 p12 b5 b3 b5 b3 b5 b3 b5 b3 b5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... ... ... ...
p02 p13 b6 b6 b2 b6 b2
b2 b6 b6
b2 b6 b2 b6
b1 b1
p14
b0
p ↵
p↵ p ↵
↵ , ↵
p↵
(b) Explanation of the edges.
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
Flow ↵
p Controller
CPU Tx CPU Tx CPU CPU
µ1 µ2 µ3 µ4 µ5 µ6 Q14
1 ↵ CPU
µ14
Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13
Tx CPU Tx CPU Tx CPU Tx
µ7 µ8 µ9 µ10 µ11 µ12 µ13
Wireless
Wired
65 0.85
60 0.8
55
0.75
50
0.7
45
0.65
40
0.6
35
0.55
30
0.5
25 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fig. 18: Simulations vs. analytical results: System delay for Fig. 19: Simulations vs. analytical results: System throughput
different values of α. for different values of α.
b6 = p00 Pr {X = 2} .
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/OJCOMS.2020.2966689, IEEE Open
Journal of the Communications Society
15
[2] R. Mijumbi, J. Serrat, J.-L. Gorricho, N. Bouten, F. De Turck, and [24] Z. Xu, W. Liang, M. Huang, M. Jia, S. Guo, and A. Galis, “Efficient
R. Boutaba, “Network function virtualization: State-of-the-art and re- NFV-enabled multicasting in SDNs,” IEEE Transactions on Communi-
search challenges,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 18, cations, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 2052–2070, 2019.
no. 1, pp. 236–262, 2016. [25] R. Gouareb, V. Friderikos, and A.-H. Aghvami, “Virtual network func-
[3] M. S. Bonfim, K. L. Dias, and S. F. L. Fernandes, “Integrated NFV/SDN tions routing and placement for edge cloud latency minimization,” IEEE
architectures: A systematic literature review,” ACM Comput. Surv., Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 2346–
vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1–39, Feb. 2019. 2357, 2018.
[4] Y. Li and M. Chen, “Software-defined network function virtualization: [26] I. Avgouleas, D. Yuan, N. Pappas, and V. Angelakis, “Virtual network
A survey,” IEEE Access, vol. 3, pp. 2542–2553, 2015. functions scheduling under delay-weighted pricing,” IEEE Networking
[5] Y. C. Hu, M. Patel, D. Sabella, N. Sprecher, and V. Young, “Mobile edge Letters, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 160–163, 2019.
computing–A key technology towards 5G,” ETSI white paper, vol. 11, [27] H. Feng, J. Llorca, A. M. Tulino, D. Raz, and A. F. Molisch, “Ap-
no. 11, pp. 1–16, 2015. proximation algorithms for the NFV service distribution problem,” in
[6] T. Taleb, K. Samdanis, B. Mada, H. Flinck, S. Dutta, and D. Sabella, Proc. IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications
“On multi-access edge computing: A survey of the emerging 5G net- (INFOCOM), pp. 1–9, May 2017.
work edge cloud architecture and orchestration,” IEEE Communications [28] S. Lange, A. Grigorjew, T. Zinner, P. Tran-Gia, and M. Jarschel, “A
Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1657–1681, 2017. multi-objective heuristic for the optimization of virtual network function
[7] Q. Ye, W. Zhuang, X. Li, and J. Rao, “End-to-end delay modeling for chain placement,” in Proc. IEEE International Teletraffic Congress
embedded VNF chains in 5G core networks,” IEEE Internet of Things (ITC), vol. 1, pp. 152–160, Sept. 2017.
Journal, pp. 692–704, 2018. [29] J. Liu, Y. Mao, J. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, “Delay-optimal computation
[8] Q. Duan, “Modeling and performance analysis for service function task scheduling for mobile-edge computing systems,” in Proc. IEEE
chaining in the SDN/NFV architecture,” in Proc. IEEE NetSoft, pp. 476– International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), pp. 1451–1455,
481, Jun 2018. Jul. 2016.
[9] W. Miao, G. Min, Y. Wu, H. Huang, Z. Zhao, H. Wang, and C. Luo, [30] Y. Mao, J. Zhang, S. Song, and K. B. Letaief, “Stochastic joint radio
“Stochastic performance analysis of network function virtualization in and computational resource management for multi-user mobile-edge
future internet,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, computing systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications,
vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 613–626, 2019. vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 5994–6009, 2017.
[10] A. Lombardo, A. Manzalini, V. Riccobene, and G. Schembra, “An an- [31] D. Han, W. Chen, and Y. Fang, “Power-optimal scheduling for delay
alytical tool for performance evaluation of software defined networking constrained mobile computation offloading,” in Proc. IEEE International
services,” Proc. IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium Conference on Communication (ICC), pp. 1–6, May 2018.
(NOMS), pp. 1–7, May 2014. [32] X. Lyu, H. Tian, W. Ni, Y. Zhang, P. Zhang, and R. P. Liu, “Energy-
[11] A. Fahmin, Y.-C. Lai, M. S. Hossain, Y.-D. Lin, and D. Saha, “Perfor- efficient admission of delay-sensitive tasks for mobile edge computing,”
mance modeling of SDN with NFV under or aside the controller,” in IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 2603–2616,
Proc. IEEE Future Internet of Things and Cloud Workshops (FiCloudW), 2018.
pp. 211–216, Aug. 2017. [33] B. Xiang, J. Elias, F. Martignon, and N. Elisabetta Di, “Joint network
[12] M. Jarschel, S. Oechsner, D. Schlosser, R. Pries, S. Goll, and P. Tran-Gia, slicing and mobile edge computing in 5G networks,” in Proc. IEEE
“Modeling and performance evaluation of an openflow architecture,” in International Conference on Communications (ICC), May 2019.
Proc. International Teletraffic Congress (ITC), pp. 1–7, Sept. 2011. [34] A. S. Alfa, Applied discrete-time queues. Springer, 2016.
[13] Y. Goto, H. Masuyama, B. Ng, W. K. Seah, and Y. Takahashi, “Queueing [35] W. Szpankowski, “Stability conditions for some distributed systems:
analysis of software defined network with realistic openflow–based Buffered random access systems,” Advances in Applied Probability,
switch model,” in Proc. IEEE Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 498–515, 1994.
Computer and Telecommunication Systems (MASCOTS), pp. 301–306, [36] R. M. Loynes, “The stability of a queue with non-independent inter-
Sept. 2016. arrival and service times,” Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge
[14] B. Xiong, K. Yang, J. Zhao, W. Li, and K. Li, “Performance evaluation Philosophical Society, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 497–520, 1962.
of openflow-based software-defined networks based on queueing model,” [37] G. H. Golub and C. F. V. Loan, Matrix Computations, Fourth Edition.
Computer Networks, vol. 102, pp. 172–185, 2016. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.
[15] H. Feng, J. Llorca, A. M. Tulino, and A. F. Molisch, “Optimal dynamic [38] D. P. Bertsekas and R. G. Gallager, Data networks. Prentice-Hall
cloud network control,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, no. 99, International New Jersey, 1992.
pp. 1–14, 2018.
[16] M. Barcelo, J. Llorca, A. M. Tulino, and N. Raman, “The cloud service
distribution problem in distributed cloud networks,” in Proc. IEEE
International Conference on Communications (ICC), pp. 344–350, Jun.
2015.
[17] H. Feng, J. Llorca, A. M. Tulino, and A. F. Molisch, “Dynamic network
service optimization in distributed cloud networks,” in Proc. IEEE
International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM)
Workshops, pp. 300–305, Apr. 2016.
[18] ——, “Optimal control of wireless computing networks,” IEEE Trans-
actions on Wireless Communications, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 8283–8298,
2018.
[19] X. Chen, W. Ni, I. B. Collings, X. Wang, and S. Xu, “Automated function Emmanouil Fountoulakis received the diploma
placement and online optimization of network functions virtualization,” degree in electronic and computer engineering for
IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 1225–1237, the Technical University of Crete (TUC), Chania,
2019. Greece, in 2016. He is currently pursuing the Ph.D.
[20] L. Gu, D. Zeng, S. Tao, S. Guo, H. Jin, A. Y. Zomaya, and W. Zhuang, degree at the Department of Science and Technology
“Fairness-aware dynamic rate control and flow scheduling for network (ITN), Linköping University (LiU), Sweden. His
utility maximization in network service chain,” IEEE Journal on Se- research interest includes low-latency communica-
lected Areas in Communications, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1059–1071, 2019. tions, age-of-information, applied queueing theory,
[21] R. Cohen, L. Lewin-Eytan, J. S. Naor, and D. Raz, “Near optimal stochastic network optimization, and resource man-
placement of virtual network functions,” in Proc. IEEE International agement.
Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), pp. 1346–1354,
Apr. 2015.
[22] L. Wang, Z. Lu, X. Wen, R. Knopp, and R. Gupta, “Joint optimization
of service function chaining and resource allocation in network function
virtualization,” IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 8084–8094, 2016.
[23] L. Qu, C. Assi, and K. Shaban, “Delay-aware scheduling and resource
optimization with network function virtualization,” IEEE Transactions
on Communications, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 3746–3758, 2016.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/OJCOMS.2020.2966689, IEEE Open
Journal of the Communications Society
16
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.