IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/igtrxx/v19y2017i01ns0219198917500013.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nash Bargaining Solution Allocation is Not Suitable for Datacenter Jobs

Author

Listed:
  • Ilya Nikolaevskiy

    (Aalto University, Finland2IDA, Linköping University and ITMO University)

  • Andrey Lukyanenko

    (Aalto University, Finland2IDA, Linköping University and ITMO University)

  • Andrei Gurtov

    (Aalto University, Finland2IDA, Linköping University and ITMO University)

Abstract

The Nash Bargaining Solution (NBS) has been broadly suggested as an effective solution for the problem of fair allocation of multiple resources, namely bandwidth allocation in datacenters. In spite of being thoroughly studied, and provably strategy-proof for most scenarios, NBS-based allocation methods lack research on the strategic behavior of tenants in the case of proportionality of resource demands, which is common in datacenter workloads. We found that misbehavior is beneficial: by lying about bandwidth demands tenants can improve their allocations. We show that a sequence of selfish improvements leads to trivial demand vectors for all tenants. It essentially removes sharing incentives which are very important for datacenter networks. In this paper, we analytically prove that tenants can misbehave in 2- and 3- tenants cases. We show that misbehavior is possible in one recently proposed NBS-based allocation system if proportionality of demands is taken into account. Monte Carlo simulations were done for 2–15 tenants to show a misbehavior possibility and its impact on aggregated bandwidth. We propose to use another game-theoretic approach, namely Dominant Resource Fairness (DRF) to allocate bandwidth in the case of proportional demands. We show that this method performs significantly better than NBS after misbehavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Ilya Nikolaevskiy & Andrey Lukyanenko & Andrei Gurtov, 2017. "Nash Bargaining Solution Allocation is Not Suitable for Datacenter Jobs," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(01), pages 1-22, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wsi:igtrxx:v:19:y:2017:i:01:n:s0219198917500013
    DOI: 10.1142/S0219198917500013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219198917500013
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S0219198917500013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    2. Shafer, Wayne & Sonnenschein, Hugo, 1993. "Market demand and excess demand functions," Handbook of Mathematical Economics, in: K. J. Arrow & M.D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Economics, edition 4, volume 2, chapter 14, pages 671-693, Elsevier.
    3. Varian, Hal R., 1974. "Equity, envy, and efficiency," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 63-91, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. de Clippel, Geoffroy & Pérez-Castrillo, David & Wettstein, David, 2012. "Egalitarian equivalence under asymmetric information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 413-423.
    2. Nikhil Garg & Ashish Goel & Benjamin Plaut, 2021. "Markets for public decision-making," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 755-801, May.
    3. Susumu Cato, 2018. "Choice functions and weak Nash axioms," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 22(3), pages 159-176, December.
    4. Jean-Paul Chavas & Jay Coggins, 2003. "On fairness and welfare analysis under uncertainty," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 20(2), pages 203-228, March.
    5. Ashish Goel & Reyna Hulett & Benjamin Plaut, 2018. "Markets Beyond Nash Welfare for Leontief Utilities," Papers 1807.05293, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2019.
    6. Mariotti, Marco & Wen, Quan, 2021. "A noncooperative foundation of the competitive divisions for bads," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    7. Anna Bogomolnaia & Hervé Moulin & Fedor Sandomirskiy & Elena Yanovskaia, 2019. "Dividing bads under additive utilities," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(3), pages 395-417, March.
    8. van Damme, E.E.C., 1990. "Fair division under asymmetric information," Other publications TiSEM 81fa79c5-4265-47a2-a142-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Kotaro Suzumura, 2002. "Introduction to social choice and welfare," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 442, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    10. Elisha A. Pazner & David Schmeidler, 1978. "Egalitarian Equivalent Allocations: A New Concept of Economic Equity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 92(4), pages 671-687.
    11. Anna Bogomolnaia & Herve Moulin & Fedor Sandomirskiy & Elena Yanovskaya, 2016. "Dividing Goods or Bads Under Additive Utilities," HSE Working papers WP BRP 147/EC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    12. Ioannis Caragiannis & David Kurokawa & Herve Moulin & Ariel D. Procaccia & Nisarg Shah & Junxing Wang, 2016. "The Unreasonable Fairness of Maximum Nash Welfare," Working Papers 2016_08, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    13. Hoang, Lê Nguyên & Soumis, François & Zaccour, Georges, 2016. "Measuring unfairness feeling in allocation problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 138-147.
    14. Anna Bogomolnaia & Hervé Moulin & Fedor Sandomirskiy & Elena Yanovskaya, 2017. "Competitive Division of a Mixed Manna," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85(6), pages 1847-1871, November.
    15. Siddharth Barman & Sanath Kumar Krishnamurthy & Rohit Vaish, 2018. "Greedy Algorithms for Maximizing Nash Social Welfare," Papers 1801.09046, arXiv.org.
    16. Devansh Jalota & Yinyu Ye, 2022. "Stochastic Online Fisher Markets: Static Pricing Limits and Adaptive Enhancements," Papers 2205.00825, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.
    17. Simina Br^anzei & Fedor Sandomirskiy, 2019. "Algorithms for Competitive Division of Chores," Papers 1907.01766, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    18. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    19. M. Hinojosa & A. Mármol & J. Zarzuelo, 2008. "Inequality averse multi-utilitarian bargaining solutions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 37(4), pages 597-618, December.
    20. Matsui, Kenji, 2020. "Optimal bargaining timing of a wholesale price for a manufacturer with a retailer in a dual-channel supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(1), pages 225-236.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wsi:igtrxx:v:19:y:2017:i:01:n:s0219198917500013. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/igtr/igtr.shtml .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.