Minimizing Delay and Power Consumption at the Edge
<p>Architecture of an edge system that allocates incoming tasks to a set of locally connected servers for edge computing [<a href="#B40-sensors-25-00502" class="html-bibr">40</a>]. It is composed of a Dispatching Platform (DP) that dynamically exploits the <span class="html-italic">n</span> distinct servers’ available capacity to allocate tasks to minimize average task delay or to minimize total power consumption. Each server has its own incoming local flow of tasks, and each server requests and receives tasks from the DP.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>The curve on the left shows the power consumption that was measured on an NUC versus its overall arrival rate of workload. There is a substantial power consumption of close to 63% of its maximum value when the NUC is idle. We observe that the power consumption attains its maximum value of 30 Watts as the workload increases. The curve on the right shows the corresponding energy consumption per arriving request in Joules as a function of the load.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>We illustrate the measured characteristics of the power consumption <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mo>Π</mo> <mi>i</mi> </msub> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <msub> <mi>X</mi> <mi>i</mi> </msub> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </semantics></math> along the y-axis in Watts, versus the load <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>X</mi> <mi>i</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> along the x-axis in tasks/sec for several different servers, showing the approximately linear increase in power consumption at some rate <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>α</mi> <mi>i</mi> </msub> <mo>></mo> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math>, which depends on the characteristics of the different processors, between the zero load level (no task arrivals and the server is idle), which corresponds to <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>π</mi> <mrow> <mi>i</mi> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math>, up to close to the maximum value of the power consumption that we denote by <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>π</mi> <mrow> <mi>i</mi> <mi>M</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math>. Note that the value <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>X</mi> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mi>i</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math> cannot exceed the maximum processing rate of jobs <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>μ</mi> <mi>i</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> of <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>S</mi> <mi>i</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>. The linear characteristic is displayed as a straight red line on top of the measured data that are also shown in the figure. The rightmost curve refers to the NUC whose characteristics are discussed in <a href="#sensors-25-00502-f002" class="html-fig">Figure 2</a>.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. The Main Results Presented in This Paper
1.2. Related Work
2. System Description
- When any completes the current task that it is executing, it makes a task request from the DP with probability . If the DP task input queue is empty, then the request is simply rejected by the DP. If the DP task input queue contains at least one task, then the DP assigns the task to with probability .
- Thus, when terminates an ongoing task, a task from the incoming pool is dispatched by the DP to with probability , provided that the input queue at the DP is not empty. If the DP queue is empty, obviously, no task can be sent. This is equivalent to assuming that when a server informs the DP that it has terminated a task, then the DP allocates a task to with probability if the DP has a task waiting at its input. If there are no tasks waiting at the DP, then the request from is rejected.
- Note that task endings at the different servers occur asynchronously with each other, and the decision of the DP is simply to send or not to send a new task to .
- Thus, each server has a queue of tasks, some of which have been sent by the DP and others are local tasks that it receives and executes.
2.1. Summary of Notation and Symbols and Abbreviations
- is the real-valued time variable.
- DP is the task dispatching platform that transfers tasks from the end users to the servers.
- denotes a server that receives tasks assigned by the DP, as well as “locally generated tasks”, e.g., from its local owner or user or as part of its operating system.
- is the rate of arrival of external tasks to the DP.
- is the rate of arrival of locally generated tasks to .
- is the average service rate for tasks at the server . Thus, the average service time per task at is .
- We define , , and .
- , , is the probability that, when completes the current task that it is executing, it requests to receive a task from the DP.
- , , is the probability that the DP accepts ’s request when the DP’s input queue is non-empty.
- is the probability that when asks for a new task from the DP, it receives it provided that a new task is available at the DP.
- is the non-negative integer-valued length of the queue of externally arriving tasks waiting at the Dispatching Platform (DP) at time t.
- is the integer-valued total number (queue length) of all the tasks that are in the queue at at time t.
- k is a particular value of .
- is a particular value of , and we define the vectors as follows:
- The following vectors are related to , where :
- is the fraction of external user tasks that the DP allocates to .
- is the fraction of external user tasks that the DP allocates to to minimize the average task response time of the edge system.
- is the fraction of external user tasks that the DP allocates to to minimize the average energy consumption per external task assigned to the edge system.
- is the total arrival rate of tasks to server , i.e., the load of .
- is the upper bound for the linear approximation of the power consumption of , and
- is the utilization rate of server . If , it can be interpreted as the probability that is busy processing tasks.
- is the average response time at the DP for externally arriving tasks.
- is the average response time of all tasks at the n servers.
- is the power consumption of server when the server is idle, i.e., when .
- is the maximum power consumption of server . It is attained when is just under the value .
- is the approximate linear increase in power consumption of as a function of the load .
- is the approximate power consumption of when its load is , for .
- is the derivative of with respect to .
- is the second derivative of with respect to .
- E is the average energy consumption of the externally arriving tasks that are assigned by the DP to the different servers, and .
3. Analytical Solution for the Dispatching Platform (DP) and Its Servers
- with probability .
- with probability .
- with probability when (a task at departs but is immediately replaced by a task from the DP).
- , with probability when (a task at departs; the request for a new task is made but the DP queue is empty (i.e., and, therefore, the DP has no tasks to send to ).
- with probability obtained from
- , with probability .
4. Minimizing the Average Response Time or Average Delay at the DP
5. Minimizing the Average Response Time at the Edge Servers
6. Minimizing Energy Consumption
Allocating Incoming Tasks to Minimize the Average Additional Energy Consumed by the Servers
7. Conclusions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
References
- Juniper-Networks. Expel Complexity with a Self-Driving Network: Soon, Your Network Will Adaptively Meet Your Business Goals All by Itself. 2020. Available online: https://www.juniper.net/us/en/dm/the-selfdriving-network/ (accessed on 15 October 2024).
- Apostolos, J. Improving Networks with Artificial Intelligence. 2019. Available online: https://blogs.cisco.com/networking/improving-networks-with-ai (accessed on 15 October 2024).
- Kompany, R. Huawei’s ‘Autonomous Driving’ Mobile Networks Strategy Aims to Increase Automation and Reduce Costs; Knowledge Centre: Analysis Mason Ltd.: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Weiss, P. Making the ICT Sector Energy Efficient: The Information and Communication Technology Sector Is a Major Energy Consumer, But It Also Offers the Potential for Savings…If Used Properly. Let’s Work Smarter. 2022. Available online: https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/energy-efficient-and-energy-smart (accessed on 15 October 2024).
- Gelenbe, E. Electricity Consumption by ICT: Facts, Trends, and Measurements. Ubiquity 2023, 2023, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ishtiaq, M.; Saeed, N.; Khan, M.A. Edge Computing in IoT: A 6G Perspective. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2111.08943. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Ansi, A.; Al-Ansi, A.M.; Muthanna, A.; Elgendy, I.A.; Koucheryavy, A. Survey on Intelligence Edge Computing in 6G: Characteristics, Challenges, Potential Use Cases, and Market Drivers. Future Internet 2021, 13, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.A.; Thang, N.K.; Trystram, D. One gradient Frank-Wolfe for decentralized online convex and submodular optimization. In Proceedings of the ACML 2022—14th Asian Conference in Machine Learning, Hyderabad, India, 12–14 December 2022; pp. 1–33. [Google Scholar]
- Sadatdiynov, K.; Cui, L.; Zhang, L.; Huang, J.Z.; Salloum, S.; Mahmud, M.S. A review of optimization methods for computation offloading in edge computing networks. Digit. Commun. Netw. 2023, 9, 450–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fröhlich, P.; Gelenbe, E.; Nowak, M. Reinforcement Learning and Energy-Aware Routing. In Proceedings of the 4th FlexNets Workshop on Flexible Networks Artificial Intelligence Supported Network Flexibility and Agility, New York, NY, USA, 26–27 August 2021; FlexNets ’21. pp. 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Safri, H.; Kandi, M.M.; Miloudi, Y.; Bortolaso, C.; Trystram, D.; Desprez, F. Towards Developing a Global Federated Learning Platform for IoT. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 42nd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), Bologna, Italy, 10–13 July 2022; pp. 1312–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, C.; Kameda, H. An algorithm for optimal static load balancing in distributed computer systems. IEEE Trans. Comput. 1992, 41, 381–384. [Google Scholar]
- Topcuoglu, H.; Hariri, S.; Wu, M.Y. Performance-effective and low-complexity task scheduling for the Bera erogeneous computing. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 2002, 13, 260–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X.; Qin, X.; Qiu, M. Qos-aware fault-tolerant scheduling for real-time tasks on heterogeneous clusters. IEEE Trans. Comput. 2011, 60, 800–812. [Google Scholar]
- Tian, W.; Zhao, Y.; Zhong, Y.; Xu, M.; Jing, C. A dynamic and integrated load-balancing scheduling algorithm for cloud datacenters. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing and Intelligence Systems, Beijing, China, 15–17 September 2011; pp. 311–315. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Z.; Zhang, X. A load balancing mechanism based on ant colony and complex network theory in open cloud computing federation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, Wuhan, China, 30–31 May 2010; Volume 2, pp. 240–243. [Google Scholar]
- Gelenbe, E.; Morfopoulou, C. A framework for energy-aware routing in packet networks. Comput. J. 2011, 54, 850–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelenbe, E.; Mahmoodi, T. Energy-aware routing in the cognitive packet network. In Proceedings of the Energy 2011: The First International Conference on Smart Grids, Green Communications and IT Energy-Aware Technologies, IARIA, Venice, Italy, 22–27 May 2011; pp. 7–11. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289245202_Energy-Aware_Routing_in_the_Cognitive_Packet_Network (accessed on 15 October 2024).
- Sakr, A.; Schuster, R. Edge Resource Allocation Based on End-to-End Latency. In Proceedings of the HotEdge ’20, USENIX Association, Online, 25–26 June 2020; Available online: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/hotedge20_poster_sakr_0.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2024).
- Sarah, A.; Nencioni, G.; Khan, M.M.I. Resource Allocation in Multi-access Edge Computing for 5G-and-beyond networks. Comput. Netw. 2023, 227, 109720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Li, S.; Sun, W. Resource Allocation for Edge Computing without Using Cloud Center in Smart Home Environment: A Pricing Approach. Sensors 2020, 20, 6545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, K.; Jiang, G.; Liu, X.; Chi, K.; Yao, X.; Liu, J. DRL-Based Offloading for Computation Delay Minimization in Wireless-Powered Multi-Access Edge Computing. IEEE Trans. Commun. 2023, 71, 1755–1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyan, J.A.; Littman, M.L. Packet Routing in Dynamically Changing Networks: A Reinforcement Learning Approach. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 6, Proceedings of the 7th NIPS Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 29 November–2 December 1993; Cowan, J.D., Tesauro, G., Alspector, J., Eds.; Morgan Kaufmann: Burlington, MA, USA, 1993; pp. 671–678. [Google Scholar]
- Tennenhouse, D.L.; Wetherall, D.J. Towards an active network architecture. Comput. Commun. Rev. 1996, 26, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsarouchis, C.; Denazis, S.; Kitahara, C.; Vivero, J.; Salamanca, E.; Magana, E.; Galis, A.; Manas, J.L.; Carlinet, L.; Mathieu, B.; et al. A policy-based management architecture for active and programmable networks. IEEE Netw. 2003, 17, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelenbe, E.; Xu, Z.; Seref, E. Cognitive Packet Networks. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI ’99, Chicago, IL, USA, 8–10 November 1999; IEEE Computer Society: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masoudi, R.; Ghaffari, A. Software defined networks: A survey. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2016, 67, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuncer, D.; Charalambides, M.; Clayman, S.; Pavlou, G. On the Placement of Management and Control Functionality in Software Defined Networks. In Proceedings of the 2015 11th International Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM), Barcelona, Spain, 9–13 November 2015; pp. 360–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montazerolghaem, A. Software-defined load-balanced data center: Design, implementation and performance analysis. Clust. Comput. 2021, 24, 591–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Qin, Z.; Gao, Y. Resource Allocation for Edge Computing in IoT Networks via Reinforcement Learning. In Proceedings of the ICC 2019—2019 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Shanghai, China, 20–24 May 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Zhao, L.; Liu, J.; Kato, N. Smart Resource Allocation for Mobile Edge Computing: A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach. IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput. 2021, 9, 1529–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, J.; Wan, J.; Lv, B.; Ye, Q.; Chen, Y. Joint Computation Offloading and Resource Allocation for Edge-Cloud Collaboration in Internet of Vehicles via Deep Reinforcement Learning. IEEE Syst. J. 2023, 17, 2500–2511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- You, C.; Huang, K.; Chae, H.; Kim, B.H. Energy-Efficient Resource Allocation for Mobile-Edge Computation Offloading. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 2017, 16, 1397–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Domanska, J.; Gelenbe, E.; Czachorski, T.; Drosou, A.; Tzovaras, D. Research and Innovation Action for the Security of the Internet of Things: The SerIoT Project. In Recent Cybersecurity Research in Europe, Proceedings of the 2018 ISCIS Security Workshop, London, UK, 26–27 February 2018; Lecture Notes CCIS No. 821; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; Volume 821. [Google Scholar]
- Gelenbe, E.; Domanska, J.; Fröhlich, P.; Nowak, M.P.; Nowak, S. Self-Aware Networks That Optimize Security, QoS, and Energy. Proc. IEEE 2020, 108, 1150–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rublein, C.; Mehmeti, F.; Towers, M.; Stein, S.; Porta, T.L. Online resource allocation in edge computing using distributed bidding approaches. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 18th International Conference on Mobile Ad Hoc and Smart Systems (MASS), Denver, CO, USA, 4–7 October 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, D.; Le, L.; Bhargava, V. Price-Based Resource Allocation for Edge Computing: A Market Equilibrium Approach. IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. 2021, 9, 302–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Z.; Schiller, E.; Kalogeiton, E.; Braun, T.; Stiller, B.; Garip, M.T.; Joy, J.; Gerla, M.; Akhtar, N.; Matta, I. Autonomic Communications in Software-Driven Networks. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 2017, 35, 2431–2445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-Ameur, A.; Araldo, A.; Chahed, T. Multiple Resource Allocation in Multi-Tenant Edge Computing via Sub-modular Optimization. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2302.09888. [Google Scholar]
- Hamilton, E. What Is Edge Computing? Definition, Examples and Use Cases Explained in 2025. Available online: https://www.cloudwards.net/what-is-edge-computing/ (accessed on 15 October 2024).
- Gelenbe, E. G-networks with signals and batch removal. Probab. Eng. Inform. Sci. 1993, 7, 335–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelenbe, E. G-networks with instantaneous customer movement. J. Appl. Probab. 1993, 30, 742–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelenbe, E.; Mitrani, I. Analysis and Synthesis of Computer Systems, 2nd ed.; World Scientific: Singapore, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ross, S.M. Introduction to Probability Models, 11th ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014; Chapter 4.2. [Google Scholar]
- Sigman, K. Stationary Marked Point Processes: An Intuitive Approach; Chapman and Hall: New York, NY, USA; London, UK; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Intel. NUC— Small Form Factor Mini PC. 2021. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Unit-of-Computing (accessed on 23 March 2021).
- Fröhlich, P.; Gelenbe, E.; Fiołka, J.; Checinski, J.; Nowak, M.; Filus, Z. Smart SDN Management of Fog Services to Optimize QoS and Energy. Sensors 2021, 21, 3105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feller, W. An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1968; Volume I. [Google Scholar]
- Feller, W. An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1971; Volume II. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gelenbe, E. Minimizing Delay and Power Consumption at the Edge. Sensors 2025, 25, 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25020502
Gelenbe E. Minimizing Delay and Power Consumption at the Edge. Sensors. 2025; 25(2):502. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25020502
Chicago/Turabian StyleGelenbe, Erol. 2025. "Minimizing Delay and Power Consumption at the Edge" Sensors 25, no. 2: 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25020502
APA StyleGelenbe, E. (2025). Minimizing Delay and Power Consumption at the Edge. Sensors, 25(2), 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25020502