Group-Server Queues

arXiv:1706.03341v2 [cs.PF] 21 Jul 2017

Quan-Lin Lia , Jing-Yu Maa , Mingzhou Xieb and Li Xiab
a

School of Economics and Management Sciences
Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao 066004 China
liquanlin@tsinghua.edu.cn
b
Center For Intelligent and Networked Systems
Department of Automation and TNList
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084 China
xial@tsinghua.edu.cn

Abstract
By analyzing energy-efficient management of data centers, this paper proposes and develops a class of interesting Group-Server Queues, and establishes two representative group-server
queues through loss networks and impatient customers, respectively. Furthermore, such two
group-server queues are given model descriptions and necessary interpretation. Also, simple
mathematical discussion is provided, and simulations are made to study the expected queue
lengths, the expected sojourn times and the expected virtual service times. In addition, this
paper also shows that this class of group-server queues are often encountered in many other
practical areas including communication networks, manufacturing systems, transportation networks, financial networks and healthcare systems. Note that the group-server queues are always
used to design effectively dynamic control mechanisms through regrouping and recombining such
many servers in a large-scale service system by means of, for example, bilateral threshold control, and customers transfer to the buffer or server groups. This leads to the large-scale service
system that is divided into several adaptive and self-organizing subsystems through scheduling
of batch customers and regrouping of service resources, which make the middle layer of this
service system more effectively managed and strengthened under a dynamic, real-time and even
reward optimal framework. Based on this, performance of such a large-scale service system may
be improved greatly in terms of introducing and analyzing such group-server queues. Therefore,
not only analysis of group-server queues is regarded as a new interesting research direction, but
there also exists many theoretical challenges, basic difficulties and open problems in the area of
queueing networks.
Keywords: Group-server queue, data center, energy-efficient management, loss network, impatient customer.

1

Introduction

In this paper, we propose and develop a class of interesting Group-Server Queues by analyzing
energy-efficient management of data centers, and establish two representative group-server queues
by means of loss networks and impatient customers, respectively. Also, we show that this class of
group-server queues are often encountered in many other practical areas including communication
1

networks, manufacturing systems, transportation networks, financial networks and healthcare systems. Therefore, not only analysis of group-server queues is regarded as a new interesting research
direction, but there also exists many theoretical challenges, basic difficulties and open problems in
the area of queueing networks.
Data centers are main infrastructure platforms for various kinds of large-scale practical information systems, and always offer economies of scale for network, power, cooling, administration,
security and surge capacity. So far it has been an interesting research direction to reduce the server
farm energy requirements and to optimize the power efficiency which may be viewed as a ratio of
performance improvement to power consumption reduction. For energy-efficient management of
data centers, some authors have dealt with several key interesting issues, for example, data center
network architecture by Al-Fares et al. [1], Guo et al. [20] and Pries et al. [35]; green networks and
cloud by Kliazovich et al. [25], Mazzucco et al. [32], Gruber and Keller [18], Goiri et al. [13][14]
with solar energy, Li et al. [27] with wind energy, Wu et al. [41] and Zhang et al. [43]; networks
of data centers by Greenberg et al. [16][17], Gunaratne et al. [19], Shang et al. [38], Kliazovich et
al. [26] and Wang et al. [39]; resiliency of data centers by Heller et al. [23] and Baldoni et al. [3];
revenues, cost and performance by Elnozahy et al. [8], Chen et al. [6], Benson et al. [4], Dyachuk
and Mazzucco [7], Mazzucco et al. [31] and Aroca et al. [2]; analyzing key factors by Greenawalt
[15] for hard disks, Chase et al. [5] for hosting centers (i.e., the previous one of data center), Guo
et al. [21] for base station sleeping control, Guo et al. [22] for edge cloud systems, Horvath and
Skadron [24] for multi-tier web server clusters, Lim et al. [30] for multi-tier data centers, Rivoire et
al. [34] for a full-system power model, Sharma et al. [37] for QoS, Wierman et al. [40] for processor
sharing, and Xu and Li [42] for part execution.
In analyzing energy-efficient management of data centers, queueing theory and Markov processes are two effective mathematical tools both from performance evaluation and from optimal
control. Up till now, few papers have applied queueing theory, together with Markov processes,
to performance analysis of data centers with energy-efficient management. Chen et al. [6] proposed a queueing model to control energy consumption of service provisioning systems subject to
Service Level Agreements (SLAs). Nedevschi et al. [33] demonstrated that introducing a sleep
state to power management in a data center can save much of the present energy expenditure,
and even simple schemes for sleeping also offer substantial energy savings. Shang et al. [38] used
network devices to routing service design, and made the idle network devices to shut down or to
put into a sleep state. Gandhi et al. [9] modeled a server farms with setup cost by means of an
M/M/k queueing system, where each server can be in one of the following states: work, on, idle,
off, or sleep, employed the popular metric of Energy-Response time Product (ERP) to capture the
energy-performance tradeoff, and gave the first theoretical result on the optimality of server farm
management policies. From a similar analysis to [9], Gandhi et al. [10] used an M/M/k queueing
system but each server has only three states: on, setup and off, and obtained the distributions
of the response time and of the power consumption. Further, Gandhi and Harchol-Balter [11],
Gandhi et al. [12] analyzed effectiveness of dynamic power management in data centers in terms of
an M/M/k model, and found that the dynamic power management policies are very effective when
the setup time is small, the job size is large or the size of the data center is increasing; in contrast,
the dynamic power management policies are ineffective for small data centers. Schwartz et al. [36]
and Gunaratne et al. [19] provided the energy-efficient mechanism with dual thresholds. Schwartz
et al. [36] presented a queueing model to evaluate the trade-off between the waiting time and
the energy consumption, and also developed a queueing model with thresholds to turn-on reserve
servers when needed. Gunaratne et al. [19] developed a single-server queue with state-dependent
2

service rates and with dual thresholds for service rate transitions.
Contributions of this paper: The main contributions of this paper are threefold. The first
one is to propose and develop a class of interesting Group-Server Queues, and establishes two
representative group-server queues by means of loss networks and impatient customers, respectively, under a practical background for analyzing energy-efficient management of data centers.
The second contribution is to set up a general framework for group-server queues, and to give
a detailed discussion for basic issues, for instance, optimally structural division of server groups,
transfer policies among server groups and/or buffers, dynamic control mechanism design, revenue
management and cost control. The third contribution is to provide a simple mathematical analysis for a two-group-server loss queue, and also to design simulation experiments to evaluate the
expected queue lengths, the expected sojourn times and the expected virtual service times for a
three-group-server loss queue and a three-group-server queue with an infinite buffer. Note that
this class of group-server queues are often encountered in many other practical areas including
communication networks, manufacturing systems, transportation networks, financial networks and
healthcare systems. Therefore, the methodology and results given in this paper provide highlights
on a new class of queueing networks called group-server queues, and are applicable to the study of
large-scale service networks in practice.
Organization of this paper: The structure of this paper is organized as follows. In Section
2, we propose and develop a class of new interesting queueing models: Group-Server Queues,
and establish a basic framework of the group-server queues, such as, model structure, operations
mechanism, necessary notation and key factors. In Section 3, we describe a group-server loss queue
from analyzing energy-efficient management of data centers, where the loss mechanism makes a
finite state space so that the group-server loss queue must be stable. In Section 4, we describe a
group-server queue with impatient customers and with an infinite buffer, where some key factors
of this system are discussed in detail. In Section 5, we provide a simple mathematical analysis
for the two-group-server loss queue, and several open problems are listed. In Section 6, we design
simulation experiments for performance evaluation of the three-group-server loss queues and of
the three-group-server queues with an infinite buffer, and specifically, we analyze their expected
queue lengths, the expected sojourn times and the expected virtual service times. Finally, some
concluding remarks are given in Section 7.

2

A Basic Framework of Group-Server Queues

In this section, we propose a class of new interesting queueing models: Group-Server Queues, and
establish a basic framework for the group-server queues, for instance, model structure, operations
mechanism, necessary notation and key factors.
We propose such group-server queues by analyzing energy-efficient management of data centers. As analyzed in the next two sections, two representative group-server queues are established
according to the need of energy saving. To realize energy saving in data center networks, a sleep
(or off) state introduced to some servers is a class of key techniques. Using States on, sleep, off
and others, a large-scale service system with more servers is divided into several subsystems, each
of which contains some servers having certain common attributes. For example, a data center has
a set of all different attributes: E = {work, on, sleep, off}, where ‘work’ denotes that a server is
‘on’ and is also serving a customer; ‘on’ denotes that a server is idle and ready to serve; ‘sleep’
denotes that a server is at the dormancy stage with lower power consumption; and ‘off’ denotes
3

that a server is shut down, where a setup time may be needed if the server change its state from
off to on (or sleep).
Now, we provide a concrete example how to establish the different groups of servers. Let the
set of all the servers in the data center be Ω = {Server 1, Server 2, Server 3, . . . , Server N }. Then
the service system of the data center can be divided into three subsystems whose server groups are
given by
Ω1 = {Server 1, Server 2, . . . , Server n} , each server is either at work or on;
Ω2 = {Server n + 1, Server n + 2, . . . , Server n + m} ,
each server is either at work, on, or sleep;
Ω3 = {Server n + m + 1, Server n + m + 2, . . . , Server N } ,
each server is either at work, on, sleep or off.
It is seen that the attributes of servers in Ω2 are more than that in Ω1 , that is, sleep. While the
sleep attribute makes Ω2 practically different from Ω1 . See Fig.1 in the next section for an intuitive
understanding. At the same time, to further understand the attribute role played by the energy
efficient mechanism of data centers, readers may refer to the next two sections for establishing and
analyzing two representative group-server queues.
In general, this class of group-server queues are often encountered in many other practical areas, for example, communication networks for green and energy saving, manufacturing systems
for priority use of high-price devices, transportation networks with different crowded areas, and
healthcare systems having different grade hospitals. Therefore, analyzing the group-server queues
is an interesting research direction both in the queueing area and in many practical fields such as
computer, communication, manufacturing, service, market, finance and so on. To our best knowledge, no pervious work has looked at and summarized the group-server queues from a theoretical
or practical framework yet.
Based on the above analysis, we provide a basic framework for the group-server queues, and
discuss model structure, operations mechanism, necessary notation and key factors as follows:
Server Groups: We assume that a large-scale service system contains many servers whose set
is given by
Ω = {Server 1, Server 2, Server 3, . . . , Server N } ,
and they also have some different attributes whose set is given by
E = {A1 , A2 , A3 , . . . , Ar } ,
where Ai is an attribute for 1 ≤ i ≤ r. From practical need and physical behavior of a large-scale
service system, the attribute set E is divided into some different subsets as follows:
E = E1 ∪ E2 ∪ · · · ∪ Es , s ≤ r.
Note that Ei and Ej may have common elements for 1 ≤ i < j ≤ s. Applying the subsets Ei for
1 ≤ i ≤ s to system behavior, the server set Ω is divided into some different groups or subsets as
follows:
Ω = Ω1 ∪ Ω2 ∪ · · · ∪ Ωs ,
4

where the server group Ωi well corresponds to the attribute subset Ei for 1 ≤ i ≤ r. Note that the
server groups Ωi for 1 ≤ i ≤ s are disjoint. In this case, the large-scale service system is divided into
s subsystems, each of which contains the servers in the group Ωi having certain common attributes
in one of the subsets Ei for 1 ≤ i ≤ s.
In practice, the attributes Ai for 1 ≤ i ≤ r have a wide range of meanings, for instance, states,
properties, behaviors, control and mechanism. From such a setting, it is clear that the server
grouping of a large-scale service system should not be unique.
Arrival processes: In the group-server queue, we assume that customer arrivals at this system
are a renewal process with stationary arrival rate λ. For the customer arrivals, we shall encounter
two issues: (a) Routing allocation mechanism, for example, joining the shortest queue length, and
joining the shortest sojourn time. (b) Arrival rate control, for example, arrival rates depending
on system states, arrival rates depending on prices, arrival rates depending on sojourn times, and
arrival rates depending on threshold control.
Service processes: In the ith server group, the service times of customers are i.i.d. with
general distribution function Fi (x) of stationary service rate µi for 1 ≤ i ≤ N . For the customer
service processes, we shall encounter two issues: (a) service disciplines, for example, FCFS, LCFS,
processor sharing, and matching service. (b) Service rate control, for example, service rates depending on system states, service rates depending on prices, service rates depending on sojourn
times, and service rates depending on threshold control.
Customers transfer among server groups: The customers in heavy-load server groups
are encouraged to transfer into light-load server groups; the customers in low-speed-service server
groups are encouraged to transfer into high-speed-service server groups; the customers in high-costservice server groups are encouraged to transfer into low-cost-service server groups; and so forth.
Under customer transferring, the residual service times of non-exponential distributions always
make model analysis more difficult and challenging.
Stability is a difficult issue: Since the group-server queue is always a large-scale complicated
stochastic system, its stability and associated conditions are always very difficult to study. To easily
deal with system stability, it is a simple method to introduce loss networks or impatient customers
to the group-server queues, where the former is to use the finite state space, while the latter is
to apply stability of the renewal processes. Therefore, this paper uses the loss networks and the
impatient customers to set up some examples, which show how to simply guarantee stability of
some group-server queues.

3

Group-Server Loss Queues

In this section, we describe a group-server loss queue from analyzing energy-efficient management
of data centers. Note that the ‘Loss Mechanism’ is to set up a finite state space, whose purpose is
to guarantee stability of the group-server loss queue.
In the energy-efficient management study of data center networks, it was an effective way to
introduce two states: sleep and off for some servers. Based on this, we can make some different
states: work, on, sleep, off and others, and the servers of the data center are grouped as Ω =
Ω0 ∪ Ω1 ∪ · · · ∪ ΩN . Concretely, a simple group-server loss queue is constructed under two states:
work-on, and sleep. Here, work and on are assumed to have the same power consumption, hence
5

work and on are regarded as a state: work-on. See Fig.1, for understanding the N + 1 server groups
and even for intuitively understanding the group-server loss queue.

Figure 1: Physical structure of the group-server loss queue

Now, we use the data center to describe a group-server loss queue, and set up energy efficient
mechanism, system parameters and model notation as follows:
(1) Server groups: We assume that the data center contains N + 1 different server groups,
each of which is a subsystem of the data center. For j P
∈ {0, 1, 2, . . . , N }, the jth server group
contains mj same servers. Thus the data center contains N
j=0 mj servers in total. Note that the
N + 1 different server groups can be divided into two basic categories: (a) Server group 0 is special,
because its each server has only one state: work-on. Hence server group 0 with m0 same servers is
viewed as the base-line group in the data center. (b) Each server of the other N server groups has
two states: work-on and sleep.
(2) Arrival processes: The arrivals of customers at the data center from outside are a renewal
process with stationary arrival rate λ. An arriving customer preferentially enters one idle server
of the leftmost server group with idle servers. We assume that each server and the data center all
have no waiting room, while each server receives and serves only one customer at a time. Hence
any new arrival is lost
P once all the servers contain their one customer, that is, the system is full
when it has at most N
j=0 mj customers.
(3) Service processes: In the jth server group, the service times of customers are i.i.d. with
general distribution function Fj (x) of stationary service rate µj for 0 ≤ j ≤ N .
(4) Bilateral threshold control: Except server group 0, each server in the other N server
6

groups have two states: work-on and sleep. To switch between work-on and sleep, it is necessary
for the jth server group to introduce a positive integer pair (Lj , Kj ) with 0 ≤ Lj ≤ Kj ≤ mj ,
which leads to a class of bilateral threshold control applied to energy-efficient management of the
data center networks..
To realize energy saving effectively, using the two states: work-on and sleep, a bilateral threshold
control is introduced as follow: Once there are more than Kj customers in the jth server group,
then each server of the jth server group immediately enters State work-on. On the contrary, when
there are less than Lj customers in the jth server group, then each server of the jth server group
immediately enters State sleep. Thus for the data center, we have the coupled threshold control
parameters as follows:
{(Lj , Kj ) : 0 ≤ Lj ≤ Kj ≤ mj , 1 ≤ j ≤ N } .
(5) Customers concentratively transfer among the server groups: In order to make the
sleep servers to enter State work-on as soon as possible, it is necessary to concentratively transfer
those customers in the sleep servers of the rightmost server group with sleep servers into the idle
servers (on or sleep) of the leftmost server group. Using such a way, this maximizes the number of
customers in the leftmost server group with sleep servers such that the number of servers with a
customer fast goes to over the integer Kj , which leads to that the sleep servers is started up and
enters State work-on. In this case, the most sleep servers in the data center are setup at State
work-on so that more and more customers are served as soon as possible.
(6) Energy consumption: We assume that the power consumption rates for the 1 + N server
groups are given by PW0 , PW1 , . . . , PWN for State work-on; and PS0 = 0, PS1 , PS2 , . . . , PSN for State
sleep. To realize energy saving, let 0 < PSj < PWj for j = 1, 2, . . . , N .
We assume that all the random variables in the system defined above are independent of each
other.
A basic issue: Establishing some cost (or reward) functions is to evaluate a suitable trade-off
between the sojourn time and the energy consumption. To concentratively reduce the sojourn
time and to save energy, some effective methods are proposed and developed, such as, (a) the
bilateral threshold control, (b) the customers at sleep servers concentratively transfer among the
server groups, and (c) the residual service times are wasted or re-used. We need to analyze their
performance and trade-off due to some mutual contradiction between reducing the sojourn time
and saving the energy.

4

Group-Server Queues with Impatient Customers

In this section, we consider a group-server queue with impatient customers, which is refined and abstracted from energy-efficient management of data center networks, where the impatient customers
are introduced to guarantee stability of this group-server queue with an infinite buffer.
In the data center, we still introduce two states: work-on and sleep for some servers. Based on
the two different states, the servers of the data center are grouped as Ω = Ω0 ∪ Ω1 ∪ Ω2 ∪ · · · ∪ ΩN .
See Fig.2 both for the N + 1 server groups and for the group-server queue with impatient customers
and with an infinite buffer.
Now, we describe a group-server queue with impatient customers and with an infinite buffer,
7

and also explain energy efficient mechanism, system parameters and model notation as follows:

Figure 2: Physical structure of the group-server queue with impatient customers

(1) Server groups: We assume that the data center contains N + 1 different server groups,
each of which is a subsystem of the data center. For a j ∈ {0, 1, P
2, . . . , N }, the jth server group
contains mj same servers. Thus the data center contains at most N
j=0 mj servers. Note that the
N + 1 different server groups can be divided into two basic categories: (a) Server group 0 is special,
because its each server has only one state: work-on, hence server group 0 with m0 same servers is
viewed as the base-line group in the data center. (b) Each server of the other N server groups has
two states: work-on and sleep.
(2) Arrival processes: The arrivals of customers at the data center from outside are a renewal
process with stationary arrival rate λ. Each arrival customer must first enter the infinite buffer,
then he is assigned to the N + 1 server groups according to the following allocation rules:
(2-A1) Each server in server group 0 is always at State work-on. If server group 0 have some
idle servers, then the arriving customer can immediately enter one idle server in server group 0 and
then receive his service.
(2-A2) Each server in server group 1 is at State sleep. If server group 0 does not exist any idle
server, then the new arrival customers have to queue and wait in the buffer. Once the number of
customers waiting in the buffer is not less than K1 , then each server in server group 1 is started up
to State work-on from State sleep, and all the customers in the buffer but at most m1 customers
enter server group 1 and then receive their service.
(2-A3) Each server in server group 2 is at State sleep. If server groups 0 and 1 do not exist any
idle server, then the new arrival customers have to queue and wait in the buffer. Once the number
8

of customers waiting in the buffer is not less than K2 , then each server in server group 2 is started
up to State work-on from State sleep, and all the customers in the buffer but at most m2 customers
enter server group 2 and then receive their service.
(2-A4) Let 2 ≤ l ≤ N − 1. Each server in server group l + 1 is at State sleep. If server groups
0, 1, 2, . . . , l do not have any idle server, then the new arriving customers have to queue and wait
in the buffer. Once the number of customers waiting in the buffer is not less than Kl+1 , then each
server in server group l + 1 is started up to State work-on from State sleep, all the customers in
the buffer but at most ml+1 customers enter server group l + 1 and then receive their service.
(2-B) If the N + 1 server groups do not exist any idle server, then the new arriving customers
have to queue and wait in the buffer.
(2-C) In the N + 1 server groups, if there exists one idle server whose state is work-on, then an
arriving customer in the buffer will immediately enter this server and then receive his service.
(3) Service processes: In the jth server group, the service times of customers are i.i.d. with
general distribution function Fj (x) of stationary service rate µj for 0 ≤ j ≤ N .
(4) Customer impatient processes: Each customer in this system has an exponential
patient time of impatient rate θ.
(5) Bilateral threshold control: Except server group 0, each server in the other N server
groups have two states: work-on and sleep. To switch between work-on and sleep, it is necessary
for the jth server group to introduce a positive integer pair (Lj , Kj ) with 0 ≤ Lj ≤ Kj ≤ mj , which
leads to a bilateral threshold control by means of energy-efficient management of the data center
networks. By using the two states: work-on and sleep, a Bilateral Threshold Control is introduced
as follow:
(5-1) From sleep to work-on: We assume that each server in server group j is at State sleep,
and an idle server does not exist in server groups 0, 1, 2, . . . , j − 1 , for 1 ≤ j ≤ N . If there are
not less than Kj customers in the buffer, then each server in server group j is started up to State
work-on from State sleep, all the customers in the buffer but at most mj customers enter server
group j and then receive their service.
(5-2) From work-on to sleep: We assume that each server in server group j is at State workon. If there are less than Lj customers being served in server group j, then each server of server
group j immediately enters State sleep from State work-on, and those customers being served at
server group j are transferred to the head of the buffer. For such transferred customers, we assume
that those service times obtained by the transferred customers, will become zero, and their service
get start again (note that another useful case is that the received service times can be cumulative,
once arriving at the total service time, the service is completed) immediately. Also, to allocate the
customers in the buffer to some server groups, each customer transferred in the head of the buffer
is the same as the new arriving customers. Thus we have the coupled threshold control parameters
{(Lj , Kj ) : 0 ≤ Lj ≤ Kj ≤ mj , 1 ≤ j ≤ N } .
(6) Customers transfer to the buffer: In order to save energy as much as possible, if there
are less than Lj customers being served in server group j, then it is necessary to transfer those
customers in the server group j at State work-on into the head of the buffer, and each server of
server group j immediately enters State sleep from State work-on.
(7) Energy consumption: We assume that the power consumption rates for the 1 + N server
groups are given by PW0 , PW1 , . . . , PWN for State work-on; and PS0 = 0, PS1 , PS2 , . . . , PSN for State
9

sleep. For energy saving, let 0 < PSj < PWj for j = 1, 2, . . . , N .
We assume that all the random variables in the system defined above are independent of each
other.
A basic issue: Constructing some cost (or reward) functions is to evaluate a suitable tradeoff between the sojourn time and the energy consumption. Note that some effective methods are
proposed and developed, such as, (a) the bilateral threshold control, (b) customers in sleep servers
transfer to the buffer, and (c) residual service times are wasted or re-used. We need to analyze
their performance and the suitable trade-off due to some mutual contradiction between reducing
the sojourn time and saving the energy.
Further discussion for stability: For the group-server queue with an infinite buffer drawn
in Fig.2, it is easy to give a sufficient condition of system stability: ρ = λ/m0 µ0 < 1, by means of
a path coupling or comparison of a Markov process.
It is seen from Fig.2 that server groups 1, 2, . . . , N provide many service resources or ability in
processing the customers, and this buffer also plays a key role in concentratively transferring the
customers in sleep servers to improve service ability of the whole system. Therefore, it may be
an interesting open problem to set up the necessary conditions under which the system stability
is, how to be influenced by the key factors or parameters, as follows: (a) the bilateral threshold
control, (b) customers in sleep servers transfer to the buffer, and (c) many residual service times
are wasted or re-used.

5

Mathematical Analysis and Open Problems

In this section, we provide some simple mathematical analysis for a two-group-server loss queue
with server group 0 and server group 1, a whole detailed investigation of which was given in Li
et al. [29]. From such mathematical analysis, it is seen that analyzing more general group-server
queues is interesting, challenging and difficult, and thus several open problems are listed for the
future study of group-server queues.

5.1

Some mathematical analysis

A special model: N = 1. We consider a special two-group-server loss queue with server group
0 and server group 1. See model descriptions for a more general case given in Section 3 in more
details.
For convenience of readers, it is still necessary to simply re-list some assumptions and descriptions for this special case as follows: (a) Server group 0 contains n servers, each of which has only
one state: work-on; while server group 1 contains m servers, each of which has two different states:
work-on and sleep. (b) No waiting room is available both at each server and in the group-server
queue. Once there are n + m customers in this systems (i.e., one server is serving a customer), any
new customer arrival will be lost due to no waiting room. (c) The arrivals of customers at this
two-group-server queue are a Poisson process with arrival rate λ. (d) The service times provided
by server group 0 and by server group 1 are i.i.d. with two exponential distributions of service rate
µ0 and µ1 , respectively. (e) Unilateral threshold control: L1 = 0 and K1 > 0. In this case, if server
10

group 0 are full with n serving customers, and if there are not less that K1 customers waiting at
server group 1 with m sleep servers, then each server of server group 1 immediately enters State
work-on, and then provides service for its customer. (f ) Because of L1 = 0, once all the customers
in server group 1 have completed their service, the m servers of server group 1 immediately switch
to State sleep from State work-on; if there are some idle (on) servers in server group 0, and if there
are customers waiting in server group 1 in which each server is at State sleep, then the customers
waiting at the sleep servers of server group 1 can transfer to those idle (on) servers of server group
0. (g) For each server in the two server groups, the power consumption rates are listed as: PW0
and PW1 for State work-on, and PS1 for State sleep (PS0 = 0 because each server in server group 0
does not have State sleep). To save energy, we assume that 0 < PS1 < PW1 .
A QBD process: For this two-group-server loss queue, the states of the corresponding Markov
process are defined as the tuples: (l0 , i; l1 , j) as shown in Fig.3, where l0 = W , l1 ∈ {W, S}, W and
S denote States work-on and sleep, respectively. Let i be the number of servers serving a customer
in server group 0, and j the number of servers serving a customer in server group 1. It is seen from
Fig.3 that for (W, i; l1 , j), we can set up four different sets as follows:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

In Block 1,
in Block 2,
in Block 3,
in Block 4,

i ∈ {0, 1, . . . , n − 1, n} ;
i ∈ {n} ;
i ∈ {0, 1, . . . , n − 1, n} ;
i ∈ {0, 1, . . . , n − 1, n} ;

l1
l1
l1
l1

= S,
= S,
= W,
= W,

j
j
j
j

= 0;
∈ {1, 2, . . . , K − 1} ;
∈ {1, 2, . . . , K − 1} ;
∈ {K, K + 1, . . . , m} .

We denote by N0 (t) and N1 (t) the numbers of servers serving a customer in server group 0 and
server group 1, respectively; and S0 (t) and S1 (t) the states of servers in server groups 0 and 1,
where S0 (t) = W and S1 (t) ∈ {W, S}. Let X (t) = (S0 (t) , N0 (t) ; S1 (t) , N1 (t)) with S0 (t) = W .
Then {X (t) , t ≥ 0} is a QBD process with finitely many levels. From Fig.3, it is seen that the
QBD process {X (t) , t ≥ 0} has a state space Ω = Ω0 ∪ Ω1 ∪ Ω2 ∪ · · · ∪ Ωm , where
Ω0 = {(W, 0; S, 0) , (W, 1; S, 0) , . . . , (W, n − 1; S, 0) , (W, n; S, 0)} ,
Ω1 = {(W, n; S, 1)} ∪ {(W, n; W, 1) , (W, n − 1; W, 1) , . . . , (W, 0; W, 1)} ,
Ω2 = {(W, n; S, 2)} ∪ {(W, n; W, 2) , (W, n − 1; W, 2) , . . . , (W, 0; W, 2)} ,
..
..
.
.
ΩK−1 = {(W, 0; S, K − 1)} ∪ {(W, n; W, K − 1) , (W, n − 1; W, K − 1) , . . . ,
(W, 0; W, K − 1)} ;
ΩK = {(W, n; W, K) , (W, n − 1; W, K) , . . . , (W, 1; W, K) , (W, 0; W, K)} ;
ΩK+1 = {(W, n; W, K + 1) , (W, n − 1; W, K + 1) , . . . , (W, 0; W, K + 1)} ;
..
..
.
.
Ωm = {(W, n; W, m) , (W, n − 1; W, m) , . . . , (W, 1; W, m) , (W, 0; W, m)} .

Let the subset Ωj be Level j. Then each element in Level j or the subset Ωj is a phase. It is
clear that the QBD process {X (t) , t ≥ 0} has the infinitesimal generator as follows:
11

Figure 3: State transition relations of Markov process in a two-group-server loss queue

12







Q=




Q0,0
Q1,0

Q0,1
Q1,1
Q2,1
..

.

Q1,2
Q2,2
..


Q2,3
..

.
.
Qm−1,m−2 Qm−1,m−1 Qm−1,m
Qm,m−1
Qm,m





.




A Markov reward process: Using the power consumption rates, we define f (x) as an instantaneous reward of the QBD process {X (t) , t ≥ 0} at the state X (t) = x. It is clear that for
x = (W, i; l1 , j) with i ∈ {0, 1, ..., n − 1, n},
f (W, i; l1 , j) =



nPW0 + mPS1 , l1 = S, j ∈ {0, 1, ..., K − 1},
nPW0 + mPW1 , l1 = W, j ∈ {1, 2, ..., m}.

(1)

For simplification of description, we write
fW,i;l1,j = f (W, i; l1 , j) .
It is seen from Fig.3 and the state space Ω = Ω0 ∪ Ω1 ∪ · · · ∪ Ωm that for Level 0,
fS,0 = (fW,0;S,0, fW,1;S,0 , . . . , fW,n;S,0) ;
for Level j with 1 ≤ j ≤ K − 1,
fSW,j = (fW,n;S,j ; fW,0;W,j , fW,1;W,j , . . . , fW,n;W,j ) ;
and for Level j with K ≤ j ≤ m,
fW,j = (fW,0;W,j , fW,1;W,j , . . . , fW,n;W,j ) .
We write


j = 0,
 fS,0 ,
fSW,j , 1 ≤ j ≤ K − 1,
fj =

fW,j , K ≤ j ≤ m,

and

f = (f0 , f1 , . . . , fK−1 , fK , . . . , fm )T .

(2)

Now, for the two-group-server loss queue, we analyze some interesting performance measures:
(a) The expected instantaneous power consumption rate E [f (X (t))]; and (b) the cumulative power
consumption Φ (t) during the time interval [0, t). At the same time, the probability distribution
and the first passage time involved in the energy saving are also computed in detail.
The expected instantaneous power consumption rate: We note that f (X (t)) is the
instantaneous power consumption rate of the two-group-server queue at time t ≥ 0. If the QBD
process Q is stable, then
X
lim E [f (X (t))] =
πW,i;l1,j fW,i;l1,j = πf,
t→+∞

(W,i;l1 ,j)∈Ω

13

where π is the stationary probability vector of the QBD process Q, and it can be obtained through
solving the system of linear equations πQ = 0 and πe = 1 by means of the RG-factorizations given
in Li [28], where e is a column vector of ones.
The cumulative power consumption Φ (t) during the time interval [0, t)
Based on the instantaneous power consumption rate f (X (t)), we define the cumulative power
consumption during the time interval [0, t) as
Φ (t) =

Z

t

f (X (u)) du.

0

(i) Computing the probability distribution: Now, we compute the probability distribution
of the cumulative power consumption Φ (t) by means of a partial differential equation whose solution
can explicitly be given in terms of the Laplace and Laplace-Stieltjes transforms. Let
Θ (t, x) = P {Φ (t) ≤ x}
and
HW,i;l1,j (t, x) = P {Φ (t) ≤ x, X (t) = (W, i; l1 , j)} .
We write that for Level 0,
HS,0 (t, x) = (HW,0;S,0 (t, x) , HW,1;S,0 (t, x) , . . . , HW,n;S,0 (t, x)) ;
for Level j with 1 ≤ j ≤ K − 1,
HSW,j (t, x) = (HW,n;S,j (t, x) ; HW,0;W,j (t, x) , HW,1;W,j (t, x) , . . . , HW,n;W,j (t, x)) ;
and for Level j with K ≤ j ≤ m,
HW,j (t, x) = (HW,0;W,j (t, x) , HW,1;W,j (t, x) , . . . , HW,n;W,j (t, x)) .
Based on this, we write

j = 0,
 HS,0 (t, x) ,
Hj (t, x) =
HSW,j (t, x) , 1 ≤ j ≤ K − 1,

HW,j (t, x) , K ≤ j ≤ m,

and

H (t, x) = (H0 (t, x) , H1 (t, x) , . . . , HK−1 (t, x) , HK (t, x) , . . . , Hm (t, x)) .
It is clear that
Θ (t, x) = H (t, x) e.
For a column vector a = (a1 , a2 , . . . , ar ) of size r, we write
∆ (a) = diag (a1 , a2 , . . . , ar ) .
Obviously for the column vector f , we have
∆ = diag (∆ (f0 ) , ∆ (f1 ) , . . . , ∆ (fK−1 ) , ∆ (fK ) , . . . , ∆ (fm )) .
14

For the Markov reward process {Φ (t) , t ≥ 0}, it follows from Section 10.2 of Chapter 10 in Li
[28] that the vector function H (t, x) is the solution to the Kolmogorov’s forward equation
∂H (t, x) ∂H (t, x)
+
∆ = H (t, x) Q,
∂t
∂x
with the boundary condition
H (t, 0) = π (0) δ (t) ,
and the initial condition
H (0, x) = π (0) δ (x) ,
δ (x) =



1, x = 0,
0, x > 0.

(ii) Computing the first passage time: Let Γ (x) be the first passage time of the cumulative
power consumption Φ (t) arriving at a key power value x as follows:
Γ (x) = min {t : Φ (t) = x} .
We write
C (t, x) = P {Γ (x) ≤ t} .
It is clear that the event {Γ (x) ≤ t} is equivalent to the event {Φ (t) > x}. Hence we get
C (t, x) = 1 − P {Φ (t) ≤ x} = 1 − Θ (t, x) ,
Hence, we have
P {Γ (x) ≤ t} = 1 − P {Φ (t) ≤ x} ,
Let
M (r, k) =

k
∂r 
(Q − sI) ∆−1 |s=0 ,
r
∂s

r, k ≥ 0.

Then
M (0, 0) = I,
M (r, 0) = 0,
r ≥ 1,
k
M (0, k) = Q∆−1 ,
k ≥ 1,
M (1, 1) = −∆−1 ,
M (r, k) = Q∆−1 M (r, k − 1) − r∆−1 M (r − 1, k − 1) , r, k ≥ 1.
Therefore, we can provide expression for the rth moment E [Γ (x)r ] as follows:
E [Γ (x)r ] = (−1)r+1 π (0)

∞
X
xk
k=0

k!

M (r, k) e,

where π (0) is any initial probability vector of the QBD process Q.
15

r ≥ 1,

5.2

Open problems

From the above analysis, it is seen that discussing more general group-server queues is interesting,
challenging and difficult. Thus it may be valuable to list several open problems for the future study
of group-server queues as follows:
• Setting up some suitable cost (or reward) functions, and provide and prove existence and
structure of bilateral threshold control by means of Markov decision processes.
• Establishing fluid and diffusion approximations for more general group-server queues, and
focus on how to deal with the residual service times of those concentratively transferred
customers to the buffer or to the left-side server groups. In fact, the residual service times
cause some substantial difficulties in model analysis.
• Constructing martingale problems or stochastic differential equations for more general groupserver queues.
• Developing stochastic optimization and control, Markov decision processes and stochastic
game theory in the study of group-server queues.

6

Simulation Experiments

In this section, we design some simulation experiments for performance evaluation of two different
group-server queues: the group-server loss queues, and the group-server queues with infinite buffer.
Specifically, we analyze the expected queue lengths, the expected sojourn times and the expected
virtual service times for the two group-server queues.
In these following simulations, we use some common parameters for the two different groupserver queues: the group-server loss queues and the group-server queues with infinite buffer, where
there are three server groups in each queueing system. To that end, we take that N = 2, m0 = 4,
m1 = 4, m2 = 3, µ0 = 5, µ1 = 4, µ2 = 3, K1 = K2 = 3 and L1 = L2 = 2.
(1) The group-server loss queues
Fig.4 indicates how the expected customer number in the whole system depends on the arrival
rate λ ∈ (15, 45). It is seen from Fig.4 that the expected customer number in the whole system
strictly increase as λ increases.
Fig.5 shows how the expected customer number in each of three server groups depends on the
arrival rate λ ∈ (15, 45). It is seen from Fig.5 that the expected customer number in each of three
server groups strictly increases as λ increases.
Note that each of the two group-server queues contains three different server groups with service
rates: µ0 , µ1 , µ2 , it is easy to see that the service times of the three server groups are different from
each other. In this case, for such a group-server queue, we need to introduce a virtual service time
as follows: The virtual service time is defined as the average service time of any customer in the
group-server queues. Thus the virtual service time describes the comprehensive service ability of a
whole system through integrating the server groups with different service abilities.
Fig.6 demonstrates how the expected virtual service time and the expected sojourn time depend
on the arrival rate λ ∈ (15, 43), respectively. It is seen from Fig.6 that both of them strictly increase
as λ increases.
16

The whole system

The expected customer number

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
15

20

25

30

35

40

45

λ

Figure 4: The expected customer number in the whole system vs. λ

Group 0
The expected customer number

3.4
3.2
3
2.8
2.6
15

20

25

30
λ

Group 1

3.5

3.6

35

40

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
15

45

20

25

30
λ

35

40

Group 2

2

The expected customer number

The expected customer number

3.8

1.5

1

0.5

0
15

20

25

30
λ

35

40

45

Figure 5: The expected customer number in each of three server groups vs. λ

17

45

0.25
Expected virtual service time
Expected sojourn time

The expected time

0.24
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.2
15

19

23

27

31

35

39

43

λ

Figure 6: The expected virtual service time and the expected sojourn time vs. λ

(2) The group-server queues with infinite buffer
Fig.7 indicates how the expected customer numbers in the whole system and in the buffer
depend on the arrival rate λ ∈ (15, 40), respectively. It is seen from Fig.7 that both of them strictly
increase as λ increases.

Expected customer number

15
Expected customer number in buffer
Expected customer number in system

10

5

0
15

20

25

30

35

40

λ

Figure 7: The expected customer numbers in system and buffer vs. λ

Fig.8 shows how the expected customer number in each of three server groups depends on the
arrival rate λ ∈ (15, 45). It is seen from Fig.8 that the expected customer number in each of three
server groups strictly increases as λ increases.
Fig.9 demonstrates how the expected virtual service time and the expected sojourn time depend
18

Group 0
The expected customer number

3.6
3.4
3.2
3
2.8
2.6
15

20

25

30
λ

Group 1

4

3.8

35

40

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
15

45

20

25

30
λ

35

40

45

Group 2

3

The expected customer number

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
15

20

25

30
λ

35

40

45

Figure 8: The expected customer number in each of three server groups vs. λ

0.7
0.6

The expected time

The expected customer number

4

Expected virtual service time
Expected sojourn time

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
15

20

25

30

35

40

λ

Figure 9: The expected virtual service time and the expected sojourn time vs. λ

19

on the arrival rate λ ∈ (15, 40), respectively. It is seen from Fig.9 that the expected virtual service
time increases slowly as λ increases, while the expected sojourn time increases rapidly as λ increases.
Here, we use some simulation experiments to give valuable observation and understanding with
respect to system performance, and this is a valuable help for design, operations and optimization
of energy-efficient management of data centers. Therefore, such a numerical analysis will also be
useful and necessary in the energy-efficient management study of data center networks in practice.

7

Concluding Remarks

In this paper, we propose and develop a class of interesting Group-Server Queues by means of analyzing energy-efficient management of data centers, and establishes two representative group-server
queues through loss networks and impatient customers, respectively. Some simple mathematical
discussion is provided in the study of two-group-server loss queues, and simulations are made to
study the expected queue lengths, the expected sojourn times and the expected virtual service
times in the three-group-server queues with infinite buffer. Furthermore, we show that this class
of group-server queues are often encountered in many other practical areas including communication networks, manufacturing systems, transportation networks, financial networks and healthcare
systems. Therefore, not only analysis of group-server queues is regarded as a new interesting research direction, but there also exists many theoretic challenge and basic difficulties in the area of
queueing networks. We hope the methodology and results given in this paper can be applicable to
analyzing more general large-scale data center networks and service systems. Along these lines, we
will continue our works in following directions in the future research:

• Establishing fluid and diffusion approximations for the group-server loss queues, and also for
the group-server queues with impatient customers and with infinite buffers;
• making power consumption rate and power price regulation in data center networks through
the Brownian approximation methods;
• setting up and proving existence and structure of (discrete or continue) bilateral threshold
control in energy-efficient management of data centers in terms of Markov decision processes;
and
• developing stochastic optimization and control, Markov decision processes and stochastic
game theory in analyzing energy-efficient management of data center networks.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant
No. 71671158 and No. 71471160; and by the Natural Science Foundation of Hebei province under
grant No. G2017203277.
20

References
[1] M. Al-Fares, A. Loukissas and A. Vahdat, “A scalable, commodity data center network architecture,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 63-74, 2008.
[2] J. A. Aroca, A. Chatzipapas, A. N. Anta and V. Mancuso, “A measurement-based analysis of
the energy consumption of data center servers,” in Proc. of the 5th International Conference on
Future Energy Systems, pp. 63-74, 2014.
[3] R. Baldoni, M. Caruso, A. Cerocchi, C. Ciccotelli, L. Montanari and L. Nicoletti, “Correlating
power consumption and network traffic for improving data centers resiliency,” Computer Science,
pp. 1-6, 2014.
[4] T. Benson, A. Akella and D. Maltz, “Network traffic characteristics of data centers in the wild,”
in Proc. of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement, pp. 267-280, 2010.
[5] J. S. Chase, D. C. Anderson, P. N. Thakar, A. M. Vahdat and R. P. Doyle, “Managing energy
and server resources in hosting centers,”ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, vol. 35, no.
5, pp. 103-116, 2001.
[6] Y. Chen, A. Das, W. Qin, A. Sivasubramaniam, Q. Wang and N. Gautam, “Managing server
energy and operational costs in hosting centers,”ACM SIGMETRICS performance evaluation
review, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 303-314, 2005.
[7] D. Dyachuk and M. Mazzucco, “On allocation policies for power and performance,” in Proc. of
11th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Grid Computing, pp. 313-320, 2010.
[8] E. M. Elnozahy, M. Kistler and R. Rajamony, “Energy-efficient server clusters,” in Proc. of the
2nd Workshop on Power-Aware Computing Systems, pp. 179-196, 2002.
[9] A. Gandhi, V. Gupta, M. Harchol-Balter and M. Kozuch, “Optimality analysis of energyperformance trade-off for server farm management,” Performance Evaluation, vol. 67, no. 11,
pp. 1155-1171, 2010.
[10] A. Gandhi, M. Harchol-Balter and I. Adan, “Server farms with setup costs,” Performance
Evaluation, vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 1123-1138, 2010.
[11] A. Gandhi and M. Harchol-Balter, “How data center size impacts the effectiveness of dynamic
power management,” in Proc. of the 49th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing, pp. 1164-1169, 2011.
[12] A. Gandhi, M. Harchol-Balter and M. A. Kozuch, “Are sleep states effective in data centers?”
in Proc. of International Green Computing Conference, pp. 1-10, 2012.
[13] Í. Goiri, K. Le, M. E. Haque and R. Beauchea. “GreenSlot: scheduling energy consumption
in green datacenters,” in Proc. of International Conference for High Performance Computing,
Networking, Storage and Analysis, pp. 1-11, 2011.
[14] Í. Goiri, K. Le, T. D. Nguyen, J. Guitart, J. Torres and R. Bianchini. “GreenHadoop: leveraging green energy in data-processing rameworks,” in Proc. of the 7th ACM European Conference
on Computer Systems, pp. 57-70, 2012.
21

[15] P. M. Greenawalt, “Modeling power management for hard disks,” in Proc. of the 2nd IEEE
on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems, pp. 62-66,
1994.
[16] A. Greenberg, J. Hamilton, D. A. Maltz, and P. Patel, The cost of a cloud: research problems
in data center networks, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 39, no. 1, pp.
68-73, 2009.
[17] A. Greenberg, J. R. Hamilton, N. Jain, S. Kandula, C. Kim, P. Lahiri, D. A. Maltz, P. Patel
and S. Sengupta, “VL2: a scalable and flexible data center network,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 51-62, 2009.
[18] R. Gruber and V. Keller, HPC@Green IT: Green High Performance Computing Methods.
Springer, 2010.
[19] C. Gunaratne, K. Christensen, B. Nordman and S. Suen, “Reducing the energy consumption
of Ethernet with Adaptive Link Rate (ALR),” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 57, no. 4,
pp. 448-461, 2008.
[20] C. Guo, G. Lu, D. Li, H. Wu, X. Zhang, Y. Shi, C. Tian, Y. Zhang and S. Lu, “BCube: a
high performance, server-centric network architecture for modular data centers,” in Proc. of the
ACM SIGCOMM 2009 Conference on Data Communication, pp. 63-74, 2009.
[21] X. Guo, Z. Niu and S. Zhou, “Delay-constrained energy-optimal base station sleeping control,”
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1073-1085, 2016.
[22] X. Guo, R. Singh, T. Zhao and Z. Niu, “An index based task assignment policy for achieving
optimal power-delay tradeoff in edge cloud systems,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference
on Communications, pp.1-7, 2016.
[23] B. Heller, S. Seetharaman, P. Mahadevan, Y. Yiakoumis, P. Sharma, S. Banerjee and N.
McKeown, “Elastic tree: Saving energy in data center networks,” in the 7th USENIX Conference
on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, pp. 249-264, 2010.
[24] T. Horvath and K. Skadron, “Enhancing energy efficiency in multi-tier web server clusters via
prioritization,” in Proc. of IEEE International on Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, pp. 1-6, 2007.
[25] D. Kliazovich, P. Bounvry, Y. Audzevich and S. U. Khan, “Greencloud: A packet-level simulator of energy-aware cloud computing data centers,” in Proc. of Global Telecommunications
Conference, pp. 1-5, 2010.
[26] D. Kliazovich, P. Bouvry and S. U. Khan, “DENS: Data center energy-efficient network-aware
scheduling,” Cluster Computing, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 65-75, 2013.
[27] C. Li, A. Qouneh and T. Li, “Characterizing and analyzing renewable energy driven data
centers,” ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 323-324,
2011.
[28] Q. L. Li, Constructive Computation in Stochastic Models with Applications: The RGFactorizations. Springer, 2010.
22

[29] Q. L. Li, J. Y. Ma, L. Xia and M. Z. Xie, “Energy management in data centers with threshold
control analyzed by Markov reward processes,” in https://arxiv.org, pp. 1-42, 2017.
[30] S. H. Lim, B. Sharma, B. C. Tak, C. R. Das, “A dynamic energy management scheme for
multi-tier data centers,” in Proc. of IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of
Systems and Software, pp. 257-266, 2011.
[31] M. Mazzucco, D. Dyachuk and R. Deters, “Maximizing cloud providers revenues via energy
aware allocation policies,” in Proc. of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing, pp. 131-138, 2010.
[32] M. Mazzucco, D. Dyachuk, M. Dikaiakos, “Profit-aware server allocation for green internet services,” in Proc. of IEEE the 18th International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation
of Computer and Telecommunication Systems, pp. 277-284, 2010.
[33] S. Nedevschi, L. Popa, G. Iannaccone, S. Ratnasamy and D. Wetherall , “Reducing network
energy consumption via rate-adaptation and sleeping,” in Proc. of the 5th USENIX Symposium
on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, pp. 323-336, 2008.
[34] S. Rivoire, P. Ranganathan and C. Kozyrakis, “A comparison of high-level full-system power
models,” HotPower, pp. 3-3, 2008.
[35] R. Pries, M. Jarschel, D. Schlosser, M. Klopf and P. Tran-Gia, “Power consumption analysis
of data center architectures,” in Proc. of International Conference on Green Communications
and Networking, pp. 114-124, 2011.
[36] C. Schwartz, R. Pries and P. Tran-Gia, “A queuing analysis of an energy-saving mechanism
in data centers,” in Proc. of International Conference on Information Network, pp. 70-75, 2012.
[37] V. Sharma, A. Thomas, T. Abdelzaher, K. Skadron and Z. Lu, “Poweraware QoS management
in web servers,” in Proc. of the 24th IEEE International Real-Time Systems Symposium, pp. 6372, 2003.
[38] Y. Shang, D. Li and M. Xu, “Energy-aware routing in data center network,” in Proc. of ACM
SIGCOMM Workshop on Green NETWORKING, pp. 1-8, 2010.
[39] L. Wang, A. F. Anta, F. Zhang and J. Wu, “Multi-resource energy-efficient routing in cloud
data centers with network-as-a-service,” in Proc. of IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communication, pp. 694-699, 2015.
[40] A. Wierman, L. L. H. Andrew and A. Tang, “Power-aware speed scaling in processor sharing
systems,” in Proc. of the 28th IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, pp. 2007-2015,
2009.
[41] J. Wu, S. Zhou and Z. Niu, “Traffic-aware base station sleeping control and power matching
for energy-delay tradeoffs in green cellular networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 4196-4209, 2013.
[42] H. Xu and B. Li, “Reducing electricity demand charge for data centers with partial execution,”
in Proc. of International Conference on Future Energy Systems ACM, pp. 51-61, 2014.
23

[43] S. Zhang, N. Zhang, S. Zhou, J. Gong, Z. Niu and X. Shen, “Energy-aware traffic offloading
for green heterogeneous networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 34,
no. 5, pp. 1116-1129, 2016.

24

