skip to main content
10.1145/1536513.1536556acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfdgConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Robust resource allocation in a massive multiplayer online gaming environment

Published:26 April 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

The environment considered in this research is a massive multiplayer online gaming (MMOG) environment. Each user controls an avatar (an image that represents and is manipulated by a user) in a virtual world and interacts with other users. An important aspect of MMOG is maintaining a fair environment among users (i.e., not give an unfair advantage to users with faster connections or more powerful computers). The experience (either positive or negative) the user has with the MMOG environment is dependent on how quickly the game world responds to the user's actions. This study focuses on scaling the system based on demand, while maintaining an environment that guarantees fairness. Consider an environment where there is a main server (MS) that controls the state of the virtual world. If the performance falls below acceptable standards, the MS can off-load calculations to secondary servers (SSs). An SS is a user's computer that is converted into a server. Four heuristics are proposed for determining the number of SSs, which users are converted to SSs, and how users are assigned to the SSs and the MS. The goal of the heuristics is to provide a "fair" environment for all the users, and to be "robust" against the uncertainty of the number of new players that may join a given system configuration. The heuristics are evaluated and compared by simulation.

References

  1. S. Ali, T. D. Braun, H. J. Siegel, A. A. Maciejewski, N. Beck, L. Boloni, M. Maheswaran, A. I. Reuther, J. P. Robertson, M. D. Theys, and B. Yao. Characterizing resource allocation heuristics for heterogeneous computing systems. In Advances in Computers Volume 63: Parallel, Distributed, and Pervasive Computing, pages 91--128, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. S. Ali, A. A. Maciejewski, H. J. Siegel, and J.-K. Kim. Measuring the robustness of a resource allocation. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 15(7):630--641, July 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. G. J. Armitage. An experimental estimation of latency sensitivity in multiplayer Quake 3. In 11th IEEE International Conference on Networks (ICON '03), pages 137--141, Sept. 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. L. Barbulescu, L. D. Whitley, and A. E. Howe. Leap before you look: An effective strategy in an oversubscribed scheduling problem. In 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 143--148, July 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. N. E. Baughman and B. N. Levine. Cheat-proof playout for centralized and distributed online games. In IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM '01), pages 104--113, Mar. 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. A. Bharambe, J. Pang, and S. Seshan. Colyseus: A distributed architecture for online multiplayer games. In 3rd Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, pages 155--168, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. T. D. Braun, H. J. Siegel, N. Beck, L. Boloni, R. F. Freund, D. Hensgen, M. Maheswaran, A. I. Reuther, J. P. Robertson, M. D. Theys, and B. Yao. A comparison of eleven static heuristics for mapping a class of independent tasks onto heterogeneous distributed computing systems. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 61(6):810--837, June 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. L. D. Briceño, M. Oltikar, H. J. Siegel, and A. A. Maciejewski. Study of an iterative technique to minimize completion times on non-makespan machines. In International Heterogeneity in Computing Workshop (HCW '07), page 138, Mar. 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. L. D. Briceño, H. J. Siegel, A. A. Maciejewski, Y. Hong, B. Lock, M. N. Teli, F. Wedyan, C. Panaccione, and C. Zhang. Resource allocation in a client/server hybrid network for virtual world environments. In International Heterogeneity in Computing Workshop (HCW '08), 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. E. Cronin, A. R. Kurc, B. Filstrup, and S. Jamin. An efficient synchronization mechanism for mirrored game architectures. Multimedia Tools Applications, 23(1):7--30, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. G. Deen, M. Hammer, J. Bethencourt, I. Eiron, J. Thomas, and J. H. Kaufman. Running Quake II on a grid. IBM Systems Journal, 45(1):21--44, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Q. Ding and G. Chen. A benefit function mapping heuristic for a class of meta-tasks in grid environments. In 1st International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid (CCGRID '01), page 654, May 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. Ghanbari and M. R. Meybodi. On-line mapping algorithms in highly heterogeneous computational grids: A learning automata approach. In International Conference on Information and Knowledge Technology (IKT '05), May 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. F. Glover. Tabu search --- Part I. ORSA Journal on Computing, 1(3):190--206, 1989.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. A. Hertz and D. de Werra. The tabu search metaheurstic: How we used it. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1(1--4):111--121, Sept. 1990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. O. H. Ibarra and C. E. Kim. Heuristic algorithms for scheduling independent tasks on non-identical processors. Journal of the ACM, 24(2):280--289, Apr. 1977. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. T. Iimura, H. Hazeyama, and Y. Kadobayashi. Zoned federation of game servers: a peer-to-peer approach to scalable multi-player online games. In 3rd ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Network and System Support for Games, pages 116--120, Aug. 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. J. Jardine and D. Zappala. A hybrid architecture for massively multiplayer online games. In Seventh Workshop on Network and Systems Support for Games (NetGames '08), 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Z. Jinquan, N. Lina, and J. Changjun. A heuristic scheduling strategy for independent tasks on grid. In Eighth International Conference on High-Performance Computing in Asia-Pacific Region '05, page 6, Nov. 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. K. Kaya, B. Ucar, and C. Aykanat. Heuristics for scheduling file-sharing tasks on heterogeneous systems with distributed repositories. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 67(3):271--285, Mar. 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart. Particle swarm optimization. In IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, pages 1942--1948, Nov. 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. J.-K. Kim, H. J. Siegel, A. A. Maciejewski, and R. Eigenmann. Dynamic mapping in energy constrained heterogeneous computing systems. In IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS '05), Apr. 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. B. Knutsson, H. Lu, W. Xu, and B. Hopkins. Peer-to-peer support for massively multiplayer games. In IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM '04), pages 96--107, Mar. 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. K.-W. Lee, B.-J. Ko, and S. Calo. Adaptive server selection for large scale interactive online games. Computer Networks, 49(1):84--102, Sept. 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. J. Pugh and A. Martinoli. Discrete multi-valued particle swarm optimization. In IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium '06, pages 103--110, May 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. A. Shaikh, S. Sahu, M.-C. Rosu, M. Shea, and D. Saha. On demand platform for online games. IBM Systems Journal, 45(1):7--20, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. V. Shestak, E. K. P. Chong, H. J. Siegel, A. A. Maciejewski, L. Benmohamed, I.-J. Wang, and R. Daley. A hybrid branch-and-bound and evolutionary approach for allocating strings of applications to heterogeneous distributed computing systems. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 28(3):1157--1173, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. D. Whitley. The GENITOR algorithm and selective pressure: Why rank based allocation of reproductive trials is best. In 3rd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 116--121, June 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. M. Wu and W. Shu. Segmented min-min: A static mapping algorithm for meta-tasks on heterogeneous computing systems. In 9th IEEE Heterogeneous Computing Workshop (HCW '00), pages 375--385, Mar. 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    FDG '09: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games
    April 2009
    386 pages
    ISBN:9781605584379
    DOI:10.1145/1536513

    Copyright © 2009 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 26 April 2009

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • poster

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate152of415submissions,37%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader