[Home] [Tech Library]
3. Storage managementIn rent-based storage management, we again must specify strategies both for the relationships between buyers and sellers (here, renters and landlords) and for the relationships among renters (in their roles as clients and consultants). The latter are complex.
3.1. Renting memory: the rental-auction algorithmIn a fully competitive market for storage space, a landlord (having many competitors) will maximize revenue by seeking full storage utilization, setting its rental price at a level at which supply equals demand (the market-clearing rate). An auction-based initial market strategy can approximate this rather well.
A landlord maintains (or uses) an auction house which keeps two data structures, a bid list and a drop list. The bid list records requests for blocks of storage; each request is associated with an object, a desired quantity of storage (limited to a maximum request, maxBlockRequest, of perhaps 1% of total local storage), and a price-per unit of memory, per of unit of time-bid for acquiring it (bidPrice). Bids are accompanied by deposits to cover handling charges. The drop list records already-leased blocks of storage, each associated with an object, a block size, and a unit rental price at which the object would prefer to release it (drop- Price). The lists are ordered by bidPrice and dropPrice respectively. A running total is kept of the amount of wasted space.
We consider the bid list to also contain an infinite number of bids at zero rental price for atomic blocks of storage to be allocated to a free memory sponge object. The sponge will be allocated memory only when no one has any use for free storage; any memory so allocated is entered on the drop list with a zero price. In a mature agoric open system, the demand for memory space should be enormous at low enough prices. With a charge-per-use policy, there is no bound to the amount of software that would migrate to a machine offering a zero storage price; storage of debugging traces and caching of calculated results would likewise expand at a zero storage price. Therefore, one would not expect to see a zero price or see any memory allocated to the sponge.
Fresh unheld space becomes available at the beginning of operations, when space is vacated, when objects are evicted for nonpayment of rent, or when more memory is purchased and added to the system. The auction house then accepts bids from the top of the bid-list, highest bidPrice first. It continues allocating blocks to bidders until it encounters a bid for a block larger than the remaining unheld space. This bid is shelved, the allocation process stops, and the price of this unsuccessful bid is taken as the rental price of storage for all objects during the next time segment.
If, as expected, the blocks requested total more than the storage available, then the maximum unallocated storage will be smaller than maxBlockRequest. If this is 1% of the total, storage utilization will be at least 99%. For example, consider a computer with ten megabytes of main memory and a memory management unit that maps addresses in 1kilobyte blocks. Memory to be allocated and traded would consist of integral numbers of these 1kilobyte blocks (which can be mapped arbitrarily, hence we can ignore fragmentation). One percent of 10 megabytes is 100 kilobytes, so this is maxBlockRequest and the largest amount that can be wasted by the above procedure. We assume that any object needing a block bigger than 100 kilobytes can afford the trouble of acquiring it 100 kilobytes at a time.
When a new bid is placed, its bidPrice is compared to the highest bidPrice on the bid list. If it is lower, it is placed on the bid list; if it is equal to or greater than the highest bidPrice and equal to or less than the lowest dropPrice on the drop list, then it is accepted if it requests a block that can be allocated from unheld space, and otherwise is placed on the bid list. If it is greater than the lowest dropPrice, then room may be freed for it.
In this case, the auction house attempts to identify enough space to accommodate the new bidder, starting with the unheld storage and then proceeding to the held blocks lowest on the drop list. Objects responsible for identified blocks are asked to vacate them or to set a higher dropPrice. On vacating, renters are refunded the unused portion of their rent money. This process stops when (1) enough space has been freed, or (2) a block is encountered having a drop price equal to or greater than the bidPrice of the new bidder. In case (1), the new bidder receives storage space and is placed on the drop list at a dropPrice of its choosing; in case (2), the new bidder is placed at the head of the bid list. In either case, the rental price of storage becomes the bidPrice of the highest unsuccessful bidder.
To guarantee that resources used will be paid for (and avoid incentives for the evolution of parasitic software), landlords must require payment for a rent period in advance. This payment should cover the cost of the next billing cycle and include a deposit to cover the cost of deallocating memory and of any special services specified in the lease agreement, such as erasure of vacated space (a sort of cleaning deposit). Rental rates will fluctuate during a rent period, with the length of a rent period varying as the inverse of the average rental rate.
Landlords can accept lease agreements of varying lengths, requiring varying amounts of pre-paid rent to allow objects to tune their storage management overhead. They can likewise agree to provide a period of advance notice before collecting rent, giving the renter time to raise money, find alternative storage, or close out its affairs.
A more complex strategy would offer prompt storage allocation (from pre-emptable cache or unheld storage), charging a premium for this service. Alternatively, this and other services could be provided by renters subletting space in their blocks. A useful service would allow a renter to split off a piece of its storage block and post a new drop-list entry for it, allowing the sale of portions of allocated blocks without the overhead of the auction house procedure.
3.2. The market-sweep algorithmsAn initial market strategy for renters is to get space by placing high (perhaps escalating) bids, and to keep it by paying whatever is necessary, so long as funds hold out. The challenge is to have funds hold out while the renter should stay, and eventually run out when the renter should vacate. Since a consultant must pay its rent in order to serve referencing clients, the initial market strategy follows the referencing structure among consultants and their clients. This structure is a directed graph containing cycles and changing over time. As a result, these strategies are more complex than those above.
A consultant must not be evicted if can be reached through a chain of strong pointers starting from a well-funded object (i.e., non-garbage must not be collected). Many objects will pay their rent out of fees charged for their services, but some objects-though never before used-may be of great value in rare contingencies: consider an object that contains plans for coping with the next terrestrial asteroid impact. Objects that are needed but rarely used must survive by charging their clients retainer fees; an initial strategy must assume this worst case.
A system based on retainer fees must avoid several problems. In one approach, objects would, when charged rent, send alert messages to their clients, asking for the needed sum; these clients would do likewise until a solvent object was found to pay the bill. This system has low capital costs, requiring little cash on hand, but it leads to an explosion of circulating alert messages, and hence to unacceptable transaction costs. In an alternative approach, objects would keep enough cash on hand to cover worst-case rent and retainer fees. This system has minimal transaction costs per rent period, but in the absence of information on worst-case rents and fees, capital requirements are unbounded and garbage collection would be indefinitely postponed.
For a system to be acceptable, transaction and capital costs must both be bounded. Transactions should require on the order of one message per pointer per rent cycle, capital required should be some fixed multiple of per-cycle expenses, and the per-cycle retainer fees paid by a client should be reasonably related to the rent paid by its dependent consultants.
Satisfying these constraints proves to be difficult. The component algorithms of the market-sweep approach include the following:
3.2.1. The dividend algorithmRaising money by simply dividing the total retainer charge equally among several directly-pointing clients won't work; it suffers from the classic public-goods problem: each client has an incentive to shirk, as long as another will pay. To pay to retain a consultant while a competitor uses it without paying is an evolutionarily unstable strategy-clients following it will lose in price competition. Multiple clients can pretend to be single clients (and thus cut their liability) by pointing via a middleman (Figure 2). To make simple retainer-charging schemes of this sort work would require peculiar and uneconomical limitations on object interactions, such as (somehow) preventing one object from serving as a middleman for another, or preventing a consultant from offering service to new clients.
A better alternative is for the consultant to collect a large enough surcharge per use to compensate all clients (or their heirs and assigns) for their earlier retainer payments. This approach converts retainer-payment into a form of investment, to be repaid through dividends raised by imposing a per-use surcharge. To make such investment attractive, dividends must be proportional to the amounts invested, and must include compensation for the risk that a consultant may in reality be used seldom (or not at all), yielding few or no dividends.
This raises the problem of estimating a consultant's future use rate (or use probability). The lower the expected use rate, the higher the per-use charges and dividends must be to compensate clients for their investment. These use-rate estimates must somehow reflect the client's own judgment, lest clients be unwilling or too-willing to pay.
Future use rates for a consultant could be estimated using the sum, average, or median of future use rates estimated and reported by its clients. But why should these reports be accurate? Mechanisms which yield estimates proportional to the sum or average are clearly unstable: if all clients share equally in retainer payments, high-use-rate clients should estimate an infinite use rate, to drive the per-use surcharge for dividend payments to zero; low-use-rate clients should estimate a zero rate, to maximize their dividends. Use of the median mechanism throws away information (e.g., a single high-use-rate client among several low-use-rate clients will have no effect on the estimate); this presumably leads to wasteful strategic behavior.
Another approach would be to accept bids for the privilege of investing, with the winning bidder asking the smallest surcharge-and-dividend per future use. This approach is stable, since payment is voluntary and will typically be justified at some level of dividend, but it fails to integrate market information effectively. Instead, it encourages clients to give a falsely-high impression of their future use rates, to drive down others' bids and hence their own future usage charges. Thus, the prospective bidder must guess others' actions based on what may be actual disinformation. Further, the special role of the low bidder encourages messy strategic behavior.
One would like an algorithm for collecting retainer payments and paying dividends that has better properties. Ideally, it should give clients an incentive to report accurate use estimates, enabling a synthesis of estimates made by those in the best position to know; further, it should provide incentives for simple strategic behavior in typical situations, and it should be insensitive to issues of entity definition-to whether one treats a buying club as an object or as a collection of objects.
184.108.40.206. DescriptionThis section provides a brief, abstract description of the dividend algorithm in its simplest form. Later sections describe its operation more informally, analyze its properties, and describe a slight modification that yields a more practical version.
Definitions of variables:
220.127.116.11. Basic analysisClients evolved under competitive pressures will tend to act so as to minimize the expected net costs of their actions. These costs may be analyzed as follows.
18.104.22.168. Analysis of incentives
If other clients suffer from a systematic bias in their usage estimates, this benefits those that estimate their own use correctly. All the inaccurate clients can be modeled as one large, inaccurate client which (by hypothesis) is in an environment in which the remaining client(s) make correct estimates. Accordingly, its inaccuracy is suboptimal, causing losses. As this is a zero-sum game, those losses accrue to the accurate estimators.
But if a client knows that other clients are systematically submitting inaccurate estimates of their future usage, and knows the direction of their bias, it can bias its own estimate to improve its expected earnings. The direction of optimal bias-whether in the same or opposite direction to the others' bias-depends on additional knowledge of the relative magnitudes of the usage rates involved. It should be rare for a client to have all this knowledge. In a typical round, a client submits a number, then pays a request. It has no direct way to infer others' estimates or their actual future usage rates.
In addition to the price-sensitivity of demand, the fixed transaction costs of paying retainer fees modify these conclusions somewhat, giving low-rate users an incentive not to participate in the process. If enough do not, the resulting underestimate of usage will give a positive return on investment to the clients that do, covering their transaction costs. A full analysis of optimal behavior seems likely to be complex.
22.214.171.124. Adding a time horizon
This would change the sense of what is being estimated from the number of future uses to the probability of use within a bounded time interval. An object R may at any time announce that future estimates will be entered into new dividend accounts subject to a new function w(t), so long as it pays dividends that result from summing the results of the new accounts with the results of the old accounts (which must be updated according to the old algorithm). This maintains all the incentive properties described above and allows retuning of W in a fair way, at the expense of additional overhead.
This algorithm allows a natural way to account for the time value of money, which may be important, since objects recover their investments only after a delay. If all clients submit low estimates, then all will receive greater dividends when R is used; this corresponds to receiving a return on their investment. For example, if they all bias their estimates by assuming a slightly greater value of W than R uses in its calculations, then the result will be as if they receive a certain rate of interest while their investments are repaid. (This holds on the average, assuming that actual use rates match expected use rates.) If different objects seek different rates of return, strategic considerations become more complex. Time-value-of-money considerations should be small in systems open to the external market, because market interest rates measured in percent per year are tiny per day or second. Long-run interest rates will equilibrate in a connected open system-investment will move toward higher rates, driving them down.
126.96.36.199. Accounting costsA remaining problem with this algorithm is that R must maintain a dividend account for every client ever charged a retainer. This may be corrected in a way that demonstrates a generally-applicable principle for lowering accounting overhead.
What is important to the incentive structure of an algorithm (in the absence of risk-averseness considerations, as is appropriate with small enough sums of money) is not that actual costs have a certain magnitude, but that average costs do so. Random variations in actual expenses and payments make no difference if the amounts are small and the averages are correct. Accordingly, with proper attention to these points and to conservation of currency, charges and payments may be rounded or made on a statistical basis.
In the present case, we seek a principled way to cut off payments to former clients, cutting short the long, exponential tail of the dividend account. This can be done by freezing the magnitude of the account when it reaches a small-enough level, and then giving the account a suitable half-life for total deletion (using decisions based on random numbers to give a certain probability of deletion per unit time). This leaves the expected payback in all future periods unchanged, but makes the expected cost of maintaining the account asymptotically approach zero.
188.8.131.52. Circulation of usage estimates
can use in estimating the rate at which it will use its own consultants, thereby propagating usage information through the system. The dividend algorithm thus provides local incentives for the combination and propagation of accurate estimates of future service demand, perhaps making possible sophisticated heuristics for anticipatory resource allocation-heuristics that reflect global conditions through purely local interactions. A conservative initial market strategy, however, might be to base usage estimates initially on some global average of initial-object-usage rates, and later on actual experience.
184.108.40.206. Open problems: the dividend algorithmSeveral open problems are associated with the dividend algorithm. These include selecting an appropriate value of W and choosing an initial usage estimate in the absence of prior history.
A particularly interesting problem is the exploration of strategies which rapidly propagate future-usage estimates though a network of objects. If R's clients report increases in their expected usage, then R very likely has good reason to report increases in its expected usage of its consultants. General rules for revising these estimates must be stable in the presence of cyclic reference structures, and stable in the presence of clever, self-interested participants.
3.2.2. Normal money flow: the retainer-fee algorithmThe retainer-fee algorithm is the basic strategy for collecting funds to cover an object's rent and retainer-fee obligations. We earlier described initial market strategies as a sort of scaffolding for building a market. We expect the dividend algorithm just described to be scaffolding of a sort that eventually becomes a structural member; the retainer-fee and other initial-strategy algorithms for storage management seem like scaffolding of a sort one expects to be replaced as the construction proceeds. They raise fewer issues of incentives and strategic stability and are intended chiefly to ensure adequate money flow on a heuristic basis.
The retainer-fee algorithm proceeds as follows. In a given cycle each renter-object R has a number of clients, numberOfClients, and a current balance, currentBalance; it calculates (as discussed below) a desiredBalance (a target cash reserve) and a balanceReserve to be set aside for certain classes of payment. The latter is chosen such that the expected expenses for the next rent cycle can be paid without dipping into the reserve. Section 3.2.4, on the base demand algorithm, will explain how these expenses are estimated.
Since this process always eliminates a client from consideration, it can be iterated (counting the first round) no more than numberOfClients times. Given the addition of a billing charge, the maximum un-reimbursed message cost at any time is numberOfClients times the cost per message, hence the cash on hand needed to follow this protocol is strictly bounded and may be covered by a fixed per-client deposit.
If iteration of this request process fails to produce enough money to prevent an improper eviction, further measures must be taken. These are the subject of the alert algorithm.
220.127.116.11. Open problems: the retainer fee algorithmTwo open problems related to the retainer-fee algorithm involve essentially heuristic choices of parameters. One is the choice of how much cash to keep on hand to meet cash-flow contingencies, another is the choice of the length of a pre-paid rent period. An initial market strategy for the former is presented below as the base-demand algorithm. The latter depends on (at least) the cost of storage rental, the cost of processing rent requests, and the likelihood (as a function of time) that one should vacate storage.
Generation scavenging  and the Lieberman-Hewitt garbage collection algorithm  both rely on the insight that objects have a high infant mortality-that a good predictor of the longevity of an object is its age. Both check new objects more frequently, thereby collecting more garbage with less effort and cost. Our initial strategy can do likewise simply by pre-paying rent for longer times as the renter ages.
3.2.3. Special money flow: the alert algorithmIf the retainer-fee algorithm fails to produce enough money to prevent R's eviction, R sends each of its clients an alert message. Strong pointing fundamentally means responding to alert messages appropriately: other money-handling procedures can fail, but (with caveats about execution time, notice, and rent periods) an unbroken chain of correct alert-processing objects leading back to a well-funded object will suffice to retain R in storage.
The idea of the alert process is to send requests for funds as far up and out through the chain of client relationships as is needed to find an object able to supply ample money. Failure to collect the needed money is assumed to imply that no solvent entity is willing to pay for continued storage of the renter, which may therefore be garbage-collected.
An algorithm for accomplishing this is described in Figures 4 and 5, and code implementing it is listed in the appendix to this paper. Recipients of alert messages first seek funds through application of the retainer-fee algorithm, then send further alert messages if needed. Propagation of alert messages in endless loops is avoided by giving each a unique identifier; objects refuse all but the first alert message with a given identifier.
All alert messages seek the full funds needed to satisfy the original alerter, plus enough to compensate the participating objects for their handling costs. This enables them to maintain a balance (the alertReserve) adequate to process further alert messages. Maintaining an alert- Reserve is like keeping a quarter for use in emergencies. Should you ever need to use it, you should use that phone call not only to take care of the emergency, but also to request a new quarter.
When a client pays the requested amount, the recipient sends cancel messages to its other clients, informing them that payment is no longer necessary. Due to asynchrony, however, multiple clients may pay before being cancelled. Further, a payment propagating down a chain of client-consultant references may be met by a corresponding cancellation propagating up the same chain. When a consultant finds it has received an unnecessary payment, it reimburses the payer-client. If the payer itself had merely passed the payment down, then it needs to pass the reimbursement up to its payer-client; thus, it needs to remember which client paid it. Since we require bounded storage costs for the algorithm, the payer needs to know when it can forget this knowledge. This occurs when the payer is reimbursed or thanked for payment-when an alert payment is actually used for rent, thank you messages propagate back up the path the payment came from. This algorithm allows a client to process only a single alert message at a time (another source of potential delay). A client must have enough storage to queue up one message per consultant, and enough cash on hand to send one message per client, hence the resources required to follow this protocol are strictly bounded.
From the perspective of the dividend algorithm, the alert process may be viewed as an- other iteration of the retainer-fee request cycle. Accordingly, objects that are prepared to pay alert-message requests promptly will have a competitive advantage over those that are not.
18.104.22.168. Open problems: the alert algorithmThe greatest problem with this alert-message mechanism is the time it requires. Even in the parallel-processing case, the time needed is proportional to the distance from a distressed to a solvent object. In the sense of guaranteeing non-collection of non-garbage objects, it works in the worst case only under the idealized assumption that alert processing times are negligible in comparison to rent pay periods. In practice, this algorithm's range of effectiveness will depend on the real times involved. The outstanding open problem is to develop an algorithm which avoids these delay problems in ensuring that non-garbage objects receive the money they need, or to develop clear (preferably locally-computable) bounds on the correctness of the alert algorithm-that is, to characterize when the algorithm is guaranteed to work.
3.2.4. Cost estimation: the base-demand algorithmGiven the overhead of the alert-message mechanism, one would prefer to minimize its use. To do so requires forestalling emergencies by making sound, conservative estimates of future cash needs. Further, if most objects maintain substantial cash reserves, alert messages need not propagate far to reach a source of funds.
A renter might seek to determine its cash needs for the next cycle by multiplying the last cycle's expenses by a safety margin. Though initially plausible, this approach is unstable in the presence of cyclic client-consultant relationships: objects request money to build up safety margins, and these requests become expenses for their clients; when propagated around a loop, safety-margin multipliers cause an exponential explosion in the cash reserves and requests.
The essential idea of the base-demand algorithm is to circulate estimated-cost information to aid planning, and to do so independently of the more irregular and opportunistic circulation of money. This algorithm operates in parallel with the retainer-fee and alert algorithms just described.
A candidate standard for the adequacy of a desiredBalance is that it call for enough cash on hand to eliminate shortfalls during any rent period, in a steady-state system. This requires determining an upper bound for the rent and retainer requests that may arrive and adding the resulting value to the alertReserve discussed above. One such upper bound consists of R's totalBaseDemand times R's rent period, to account for average expenses, plus the sum of all R's consultants' demand chunks, to account for a worst-case peak in demand (in which, for example, a set of long-period renters all charge retainer fees during one of R's shorter rent periods).
22.214.171.124. AnalysisThe dynamic behavior of this system may be visualized in terms of a physical model in which each object's rent obligations are a source of "demand flux lines." When a new renter is introduced in a system with uniform rent periods, the demand-flux lines stemming from its rent extend one consultant-to-client step per rent period until they end in a non-retained funds source-that is, in an entity that pays its obligations out of earnings, capital, and so forth. Where a retained consultant has several clients, the bundle of lines splits but conserves total flux. When an established renter disappears, its associated flux lines suffer a wave of termination, propagating at the same speed.
Figure 6 illustrates several states in a system before and after a new client begins pointing at a looped structure. Where pointing relationships loop, but some pointers enter from the outside (as shown), a certain fraction of demand-flux escapes in each circuit of the loop. This gives the total demand flux an exponential settling behavior in which the equilibrium total- BaseDemand values accurately predict per-cycle expenses. (Non-uniform rent periods change the speed with which lines propagate, but do not change the essential dynamics.)
126.96.36.199. Open problems: the base-demand algorithmThe base-demand algorithm propagates base demand information at an awkwardly slow rate, particularly in the presence of cyclic structures. This can sometimes make emergency cash demands (and resort to the alert algorithm) unavoidable. Better heuristics for determining cash on hand would be desirable.
With the present algorithm, objects in cyclic structures will also report biased cost numbers. In a modified version of the situation shown in Figure 6, if D's estimated use of B is arbitrarily low, then B may report an arbitrarily high base demand estimate to E, although E will actually be charged no more than the sum of A, B, and C's rent. This results in B appearing less competitive than it is. This bias is unpleasant, but at least has stable consequences: if E does decide to retain B, it will be favorably surprised, and hence will have no incentive to immediately reverse its decision.
Many of the problems of this algorithm result from objects participating in cyclic structures of which they are unaware. Finding cycles by propagating full referencing information would violate the privacy of the objects involved. An open problem is to determine how little information about reference structure can be revealed while still alleviating the above problems.
There are also problems with the incentive structure of this algorithm. Information on base demand can be viewed as an indication of the expected storage surcharge for using a consultant. Objects therefore have an incentive to attempt to gain clients by deviating from the algorithm and understating costs. This is similar to the "low-balling" problem in cost-plus contracts-companies may knowingly provide a low estimate of costs while a contractor is being selected; overruns occur later, after enough time and money have been invested in the project to prevent clients from easily switching. A more market-like alternative for estimating future costs might provide rewards and penalties that would avoid this peculiar incentive.
3.3. ApplicationsHow practical are these algorithms for storage management? They are substantially more complex than typical garbage collection algorithms, but this complexity need not be visible to a programmer-it presents a simple interface. In terms of computational resources, though, they are substantially more expensive than typical garbage collection algorithms; this restricts their applicability. One would not use them to allocate and free cons cells in a Lisp system, but one could use them to allocate and free space for large objects-even Lisp systems themselves-which might use conventional garbage collection internally.
In general, algorithms like these will make less sense when objects are small, simple, short-lived, and mutually trusting. They will make more sense when objects are large enough to make their storage costs worth considering (in the sense of "worth the overhead of computing costs and making tradeoffs"). They will make more sense when objects are complex enough to make economic decisions, and long-lived enough for the cost of making those decisions to be amortized over a significant storage time. Finally, some form of market-based storage management seems necessary if objects coded by different groups for different purposes are to make efficient use of machine resources and each other.
Some of the flaws of these algorithms become unimportant if the consequence of evicting an object is merely clearing a copy of it from a local cache or migrating it to a different machine or a different form of long-term storage. If failure to pay rent does not destroy an object, then delays in alert processing can no longer threaten program correctness. Further, large objects are more often candidates for migration than for deletion. Information of the sort circulated by the dividend and base-demand algorithms can help to tune local working-sets of objects in distributed open systems.
[Home] [Tech Library]