S

heduling Algorithms for a Mixture of Real-Time and Non-Real-Time

Data in HDR

Sanjay Shakkottaia  Alexander L. Stolyarb

a
Coordinated S ien e Laboratory and
Department of Ele tri al and Computer Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
b
Mathemati al S ien es Resear h Center
Bell Laboratories, Lu ent Te hnologies
600 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, NJ 07974
High Data Rate (HDR) te hnology has re ently been proposed as an overlay to CDMA
as a means of providing pa ket data servi e to mobile users. In this paper, we study various
s heduling algorithms for a mixture of real-time and non-real-time data over HDR/CDMA
and ompare their performan e. We study the performan e with respe t to pa ket delays
and also average throughput, where we use a token based me hanism to give minimum
throughput guarantees. We nd that a rule whi h we all the exponential rule performs
well with regard to both these riteria. (In a ompanion paper, we show that this rule
is throughput-optimal, i.e., it makes the queues stable if it is feasible to do so with any
other s heduling rule.) Our main on lusion is that intelligent s heduling algorithms in
onjun tion with token based rate ontrol provide an eÆ ient framework for supporting
a mixture of real-time and non-real-time data appli ations in a single arrier.
1. INTRODUCTION

There has been rapid growth of wireless telephony in the past few years. In onjun tion
with the explosive growth of the Internet, this has led to an in reasing demand for wireless
data servi es. In response to this demand, various me hanisms have been proposed to
support data traÆ over wireless telephony servi es. One of the proposed s hemes to
provide high-speed downstream data a ess over CDMA is High Date Rate (HDR, see
[2℄).
In this paper, we wish to address the following problems, namely,
(i) How an multiple real-time data users be supported simultaneously with good qual-
ity of servi e (QoS) for all users, namely, with pa ket delays not ex eeding given
thresholds with high probability.
 This work was arried out when this author was an intern at Bell Labs, Lu ent Te h., Murray Hill, NJ
07974
 (ii) How an a mixture of real-time and non-real-time users be supported simultaneously
with real-time users re eiving their desired QoS and non-real-time users re eiving
the maximum possible throughput without ompromising the QoS requirements of
real-time users.
Wireless s heduling has two pe uliarities whi h distinguish it from onventional wireline
s heduling. These are
(i) The hannel here is not perfe t and is subje t to errors. This auses bursts of errors
to o ur during whi h pa kets annot be su essfully transmitted on link. The
impli ation of this is that good s heduling algorithms need to be hannel quality
(state) dependent.
(ii) Channel state varies randomly in time on both slow and fast time s ale.
(a) Fast hannel variations (due to fast fading) are su h that states of dierent
hannels an asyn hronously swit h from \good" to \bad" within a few millise onds
and vi e-versa. A good s heduling algorithm should take advantage of this by giving
some preferen e to a user whose hannel is urrently good.
(b) Slow hannel variation means that the average hannel state ondition de-
pends on user lo ation and interferen e level. Therefore some users inherently de-
mand more air-interfa e resour es than others, even if their data rate requirement
is the same.
The study in this paper ompares various wireless s heduling algorithms whi h expli itly
use the above information. Our model and the form of QoS for real-time users are essen-
tially same as those in [1℄, where the Modied Largest Weighted Delay First (M-LWDF)
rule was proposed and studied. The most important ontribution of this paper is the
detailed study of the Exponential rule and the gains a hieved by the use of this algorithm.
(In [12℄, we also formally show that the exponential rule is throughput-optimal, in the sense
that it makes the queues stable if it is feasible to do so with any other s heduling rule.)
We also study means by whi h users an be guaranteed a minimum throughput, namely
employing virtual token queues for this purpose. Guaranteed minimum throughput is a
QoS notion appropriate for non-real-time users.
1.1. Related Work
In [16℄, optimal s heduling for a wireless system onsisting on N queues and a single
server is studied. The arrival pro ess to ea h queue are assumed to be and i.i.d. Bernoulli
pro esses. The hannel per eived by ea h queue is also assumed to be an i.i.d. Bernoulli
pro ess. The authors show that the poli y whi h minimizes the total number of pa kets
in the system in a sto hasti ordering sense is the one whi h serves the longest queue.
However, if the hannels are orrelated (as is the ase in Rayleigh fading hannels), then
it is lear that a hannel state independent poli y like this one will perform badly.
In [13℄, the authors study the problem of s heduling multiple real-time streams with
deadlines, over a shared hannel. The hannel is onsidered to be ON-OFF. It is observed
that a hannel state dependent version of the earliest deadline date (EDD) poli y is
not always optimal in the sense of minimizing the number of pa kets lost due to deadline
expiry. However, for most values of the hannel parameters that are of pra ti al interest, it
is shown that the modied-EDD is optimal. Re ent work in [18℄ study a dynami program
approa h to downlink s heduling, where for various amounts of hannel information, the
authors hara terize poli ies whi h maximize a dis ounted ost using a dynami program.
The authors in [3℄ study the ee t of the wireless link on the performan e of trans-
port proto ols su h as TCP for various s heduling proto ols using a simulation-based
approa h. They on lude that a hannel-state dependent s heduler an lead to signi ant
improvement in hannel utilization for typi al wireless LAN ongurations. This idea is
further explored in [7℄ in the ontext of fair queueing.
The rest of this paper is as follows. In Se tion 2, we des ribe the system model and
dis uss the simulation parameters. We then des ribe various s heduling algorithms (in
Se tion 2.1) under onsideration and the performan e metri s (in Se tion 2.3) that are
used. Finally, in Se tion 3, we present the simulation results and dis uss them.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL

A very attra tive feature of HDR is that it enables the use of eÆ ient s heduling
algorithms. In this se tion, we des ribe the CDMA-HDR system model, and des ribe
various algorithms used for s heduling data ows. Two measures of the merit of these
algorithms are pa ket delay distributions and throughput. We dis uss these measures
and des ribe a means of ensuring quality of servi e (QoS) guarantees in onjun tion with
these measures.
We study a single ell CDMA system with HDR (see [2℄). HDR is a downlink pa ket-
data servi e whi h o upies a single arrier of a CDMA system. Transmissions for dierent
users are time multiplexed, i.e., data is transmitted to one user at a time at the full power
available at the base-station. The ell serves N mobile users, ea h re eiving a data ow2 .
The base-station ontains N queues, ea h orresponding to a dierent data ow, and an
asso iated s heduler. The s heduling de isions are made on e every \time-slot", whi h is
as in HDR, 1.667 m se .
As mentioned before, all users share a ommon hannel. However, the quality (i.e., the
fading level) of the hannel seen by dierent users is dierent, and hanges asyn hronously
in time. The hannel model in our simulation is as follows. Using typi al HDR and ell
parameters, and using a onservative analysis as in [2℄, we an derive the average fade
level distribution for a typi al mobile in a ell. Using this distribution, we pi k 14 users,
and nd the orresponding average data rate to ea h user as in Table 1. Ea h entry
orresponds to the mean data rate re eived by the orresponding user if the base-station
dedi ated all transmission time to that user. Then, we assume that the hannels are
Rayleigh fading with the mean being that hosen above. We next note that HDR does
not support arbitrary transmission rates. In our simulations, we assume that the a tual
set of available rates is 2 *9.6 kbps, i = 0; 1; 2; : : :3. The a tual transmission rate is
i

hosen to be the largest available rate su h that is satised. We denote the a tual
Eb

maximum rate that the hannel an support over a slot as the state of the hannel at
N0

that slot. Finally, in our simulations, we assume that the speed of the mobiles are 6 mph.
2 This means that the pa kets of ea h ow must be delivered in order.
3 The exa t rate set in HDR is given in [2℄.
Table 1
Mean throughput supported by the Rayleigh fading hannels.
User Number \Mean" Rate ( in kbps) i

1 398.72
2 397.14
3 397.14
4 384.91
5 360.88
6 342.00
7 276.01
8 241.43
9 232.18
10 220.60
11 191.24
12 154.27
13 150.72
14 137.80

This orresponds to a doppler frequen y of 8 Hz, roughly hara terizing how \fast" the
variations of the hannel quality are.
The s heduler makes a de ision to serve a parti ular queue at the beginning of every
time slot. This de ision ould depend on pa ket delays and hannel states. We assume
that the s heduler has ( urrent or delayed) hannel state information and also the head
of line (HOL) pa ket delays. On e a de ision has been made, the hosen queue is servi ed
in the slot at the rate orresponding to the state of its hannel.
In the simulations, we assume that N = 14. Ea h of these users require an average rate
of 28.8 kbps. This orresponds to the typi al rate required for streaming audio over the
Internet. The arrival pro esses to ea h of the queues are Bernoulli pro esses with a mean
rate of 28.8kbps, with a pa ket size being 128 bytes ( orresponding to a HDR pa ket).
Real-time users like streaming audio will indeed generate a smooth traÆ , and hen e, a
Bernoulli model seems reasonable for su h traÆ . On the other hand, in our study, a
non-real-time or a very bursty traÆ is modeled by its \worst ase", an innite amount
of data to send.
2.1. S heduling Algorithms
The s heduling algorithms under onsideration are the FIFO rule, maximum rate rule
(MAX-RATE), the modied largest weighted delay rst rule (M-LWDF), the proportion-
ally fair rule (PROP-FAIR), and the exponential rule (EXP).
Let us dene
 (t) to be the state of the hannel of user i at time t, i.e., the a tual rate supported
i
by the hannel. This rate is onstant over one slot.
i to be the rate orresponding to the mean fading level of user i as in Table 1.
 W (t) to be the amount of time the HOL pa ket of user i has spent at the base-
i
station.
The FIFO dis ipline s hedules the user whose HOL pa ket has spent the longest time
at the base-station. Formally, we s hedule at time t, the user
j = arg max W (t) i
i

This poli y is oblivious to the hannel state, and as an be expe ted, performs very
poorly. In the results presented in Se tion 3, we do not in lude the performan e of this
poli y be ause for typi al loads supported by other poli ies, this poli y renders the system
unstable.
The maximum rate rule s hedules the user whose hannel an support the largest data
rate over the next slot, i.e.,
j = arg max  (t) i
i

This learly requires hannel state information. We study the ase where the exa t hannel
state is known and also the ase when only delayed hannel state information is available.
The modied largest weighted delay rst (M-LWDF) rule has been proposed in [1℄. For
any arbitrary set of > 0, the rule is given by
i

j = arg max  (t) W (t) i i i

i

It has been proven in [1℄ that this rule is throughput optimal. (A poli y is said to be
throughput-optimal if it satises the property that it renders the queues at the base-
station stable if any other rule an do so. In other words, it has the largest stable
admission region.) It was also demonstrated by simulation that a \good" hoi e of is i
given by =  , where a > 0; i = 1; : : : ; N , are suitable weights, whi h hara terize the
i
ai
i
desired QoS. This rule tries to balan e the weighted delays of pa kets and also tries to
i

utilize the hannels in a good manner.

The proportionally fair rule (PROP-FAIR) has been proposed for HDR (see [17,8℄).
As the name suggests, this rule attempts a \proportionally fair" allo ation of rates to
dierent users. We onsider a version of this rule, given by
 (t)
j = arg max (1)
i
i 
 i

Remark. The above rule (1) is not the \true" proportionally fair rule as in [17,8℄. The
true proportionally fair rule is given by
 (t)
j = arg max (2)
i
i ~
 i

where ~ is the mean rate a tually given to user i, and measured over a ertain (relatively
i
long) \sliding window" (see [17,8℄). In the ase when all users have innite amount of
data to send to (and all users have the same model of hannel variations but with dierent
average levels, as in our simulations), the rules (1) and (2) are approximately equivalent.
We hoose the version (1) for our simulations, be ause in the ase of data ows arriving
at nite rates, for some users we have ~ =  (i.e. the entire ow \goes through") no
i i
matter how good their average hannel ondition is; as a result, for those users, ~ is not i
a good measure of the a tual \amount of the air interfa e resour e" allo ated to them.
We note that the PROP-FAIR rule (any version!) does not a ount for delays of pa kets
and an result in poor delay performan e (see Se tion 2.3). Further, it an be easily shown
that this rule is not throughput-optimal.
Study of the exponential rule, brie y introdu ed as a heuristi s in [1℄, is in the enter
of this work, so it is dis ussed in more detail in the next Se tion.
2.2. The Exponential Rule
Let us x any set of positive onstants i > 0 and a i > 0, i = 1; 2; : : : N . Then, the
exponential rule is given by
!
ai Wi (t) aW
j = arg max  (t) exp p
i
i i
1+ aW
where aW = 1 P a W (t).
N i i i

2.2.1. Intuition
For \reasonable" values of and a (this issue is dis ussed in Se tion 2.2.3), this poli y
i i
tries to equalize the weighted delays a W (t) of all the queues when their dieren es are
i i
large. As we an see, if one of pthe queues would have a larger (weighted) delay than
the others by more than order aW , then the exponent term be omes very large and
overrides hannel onsiderations (as long as its hannel an support a non-zero rate),
hen e leading to that queue getting priority. (We note that the aW term in the exponent
an be dropped without hanging the rule as it is ommon for all queues. This is present
only to emphasize the motivation for pthis rule.) On the other hand, for small weighted
delay dieren es (i.e., less than order aW ), the exponential term is lose to 1 and the
poli y be omes the proportionally fair rule. Hen e, this poli y gra efully adapts from a
proportionally fair one to one whi h balan es delays. The fa tor 1 in the denominator of
the rule is present simply to prevent the exponent from blowing up when the weighted
delays are small. We dis uss the merits of this rule in greater detail in Se tion 3.
2.2.2. Throughput-Optimality
In our ompanion paper [12℄, we prove that the exponential rule is throughput optimal.
(We remind, this means that it renders the queues at the base station stable if any other
rule an do so.) The assumptions on the hannel and arrival pro esses are quite general.
We assume that the aggregate hannel pro ess (in luding states of all individual hannels),
is Markovian with a nite number of states. Note that the individual hannels need not
be independent. The aggregate input pro ess is assumed to be an ergodi (dis rete time)
Markov hain.
The proof of the throughput-optimality uses uid limit te hnique [10,5,4,14,6℄, along
with a separation of time-s ales argument. We refer reader to [12℄ for the details.
2.2.3. Choi e of Parameters
As in M-LWDF, the hoi e of is given by =  . The values of a ; i = 1 : : : N ,
i i
ai
i
determine the tradeo between redu ing weighted delays and being proportionally fair
i
when delays are small. The QoS requirement would be of the form
Pr(Wi > Ti)  Æ i

where W is delay en ountered by a typi al pa ket of user i, T is the maximum delay that
i i
user i an tolerate (measured in slots) and Æ is the largest probability with whi h the
i
system is allowed to violate the delay requirement. For the system we are interested in, a
typi al requirement would be a violation probability of 10 2 orresponding to a maximum
delay of the order of a se ond. As play-out buers for streaming audio over the Internet
are suÆ iently large, the above values are a reasonable requirement. log( )
A rule of thumb for hoosing a whi h works in pra tise is a =
i i . This rule is
Æi

suggested by large deviation optimality results of [15℄. We note that the performan e
Ti

of the rule is robust with respe t to moderate hanges of T and Æ . Simulation results
i i
exploring this aspe t are available in [11℄.
2.3. Performan e Metri s
In this se tion, we dis uss the performan e metri s we employ to evaluate the s heduling
algorithms. These are the delay riterion and the average throughput. One or the other
is more important depending on the type of the traÆ .
For real-time traÆ , a good measure of performan e is the delays pa kets in ur at the
base-station. We assume for simpli ity that all users need the same delay QoS, i.e., they
all have the same T and Æ . A good s heduling algorithm should keep all delays below
i i
T with high probability, whi h is a hieved roughly when the delays are kept lose for
i
all users. In the setup we study, the worst user (the mobile with the worst hannel)
has the average hannel quality mu h worse than the best one. From Table 1, the best
user an support a mean rate of 398.72 kbps (if it would be the only user of the ell)
while the worst one supports only 137.8 kbps. However, we want to support 14 users
simultaneously, ea h with a mean rate 28.8 kbps, leading to a total rate of 403.2 kbps.
A naive s heduling algorithm whi h does not depend on the hannel state will nd it
impossible to a hieve this obje tive. However, a smart algorithm whi h favors users with
relatively good hannels would hopefully be able to a hieve this obje tive.
If a system with real-time users only is stable, then learly, the long term throughput
is simply the arrival rate. As we remarked earlier, the M-LWDF and the EXP rule are
optimal in this regard, i.e., they an support the largest set of available rates. The proofs
of this an be seen in [1,12℄. Finally, we omment that s heduling algorithms whi h keep
the delays of all the users about the same and keep them all reasonably small are superior
to those whi h may have better delay tails for one of the users but have very bad delays
for other users.
Another important measure is the long term throughput available to ea h of the queues.
For non-real time data, this is the main measure of interest. We would like to give
minimum throughput guarantees to these users.
Suppose we have a mixture of oexisting real-time and non-real-time users in the ell.
In this ase, we want to serve all the real-time users with low ow delays and provide
minimum rate guarantees to non-real-time users. Moreover, we want leftover apa ity to
be allo ated to non-real-time users in a proportionally fair manner. We show that this
an be a omplished using token based versions of our s heduling s hemes.
2.4. Token Queues for Minimum Throughput Guarantees
The M-LWDF and EXP rules, as they des ribed above, make s heduling de isions based
on the a tual pa ket delays (in addition to the hannel onditions). If providing a ertain
minimum throughput to a ow is a goal, those rules an be modied as follows. Suppose,
asso iated with ea h user, there is a virtual token queue into whi h tokens arrive at a
onstant rate r , the desired throughput of user i. (I.e., a ounter representing the token
i
queue is in remented by r
t at regular time points,
t time units apart.) Let us dene
i
V (t) to be the delay of the head of line token in the user i token queue. Note that we
i
do not need to a tually maintain the token delays. As the arrival rates of tokens are
onstant, V (t) = ( ) , where Q (t) is token queue length (a ounter value) at time t.
i
Qi t
i
Then, we use the M-LWDF and EXP rules with W (t) being repla ed by V (t). After
ri
i i
the servi e of a (real) queue, the number of tokens in the orresponding token queue is
redu ed by the a tual amount of data transmitted. (\Pathologi al" ases are treated as
follows. If a user is s heduled, and does not have enough pa kets to send, the token queue
is depleted by the amount as if it had enough data to send. If user should be s heduled,
but has no data to send, its token queue is depleted by the orresponding amount, and
s heduler hooses the \se ond best" queue to serve, and so on. If a token queue is shorter
than the number of tokens that needs to be removed, it is set to 0.) To in rease the
algorithm's robustness, for real-time users, we will set the token rates to be slightly larger
(by 2%) than the desired throughput.
A token queue is similar to a leaky bu ket regulator followed by a real queue based
s heduler. However, there are some dieren es. With a good s heduling algorithm, a
token queue me hanism an allow a user to utilize more than the required minimum rate
if all the token queues are small. Su h an ee t is possible with leaky bu ket regulators
if the regulator marks pa kets as high and low priority and the s heduling algorithm
operates on the high priority queue lengths and pa ket delays. However, this ould lead
to out sequen e delivery for the low priority pa kets. This would not be so with the token
queue me hanism.
3. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this se tion, we present simulation results for the system des ribed in the previous
se tion. As des ribed earlier, we onsider a CDMA/HDR ell with 14 users. The han-
nels are Rayleigh fading, whi h have been implemented using Jakes's implementation of
Clarke's fading model.
3.1. Real Queue based S heduling
In Figure 1, we plot the delay distribution tails for the best and worst users(i.e., users 1
and 14 in Table 1). The arrival pro ess to ea h queue is a Bernoulli pro ess with a mean
rate of 28.8 kbps. We assume that the s heduler has knowledge of the urrent state of the
hannel. We observe that for the best user, the MAX-RATE rule provides the best delay
distribution tails. However, for the worst user, the queue be omes unstable, leading to
Pr(Wi > d) = 1 for all d > 0. This an be understood from the fa t that at ea h slot, this
algorithm s hedules the queue whose hannel an support the maximum rate. Therefore,
most of the time, this leads to the user orresponding to the better hannel utilizing a
slot whenever it has pa kets. However, this greedy s heme leads to suboptimal utilization
 14 Users without Token Queues
0
10
EXP
M−LWDF
MAXRATE
PROP FAIR
−1
10

−2
10
Pr(Delay > x)

−3
10

−4
10

−5
10
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
delay (m sec)

Figure 1. Real queue based s heduling. Data rate: 28.8 kbps per user. Delay tails of the
best and worst users are plotted. The s heduler has exa t hannel knowledge.

of the system4 leading to instability for users with poorer hannels.

As an be observed from these plots, the exponential rule leads to the best perfor-
man e, keeping the delays of the best and worst users lose, as well as providing the best
performan e among all the stable algorithms. On the other hand, as mentioned earlier,
the PROP-FAIR rule does not lead good delay performan e, with the performan e being
an order of magnitude worse than the EXP rule at the desired QoS. Qualitatively similar
results hold true even when only delayed hannel information is available to the s heduler
(see [11℄).
3.2. Token Queues Based S heduling for a Mixture of Real-Time and Non-
Real-Time Users
We next study the ase when we have both real-time and non-real-time users. A non-
real-time user is modeled as a user sending at rate mu h greater than 28.8 kbps. Token
queues are used to guarantee a minimum throughput of 28.8 kbps to all users, real-time
as well as non-real-time. In this se tion, we do not study the MAX RATE algorithm.
This is be ause even with real-time users only, the algorithm made queues unstable as
seen from Figure 1.
In Figures 2 and 3, we study the throughput and delays for a system onsisting of 14
users. User 1 is a non-real-time user, sending pa kets at a rate of 288 kbps. The queue
orresponding to user 1 is ba k-logged all the time, hen e, the delays of the best and worst
real-time users are plotted, i.e., users 2 and 14 respe tively.
We note that all three algorithms a hieve the desired minimum throughput. However,
the EXP and the PROP FAIR rules allo ate a larger rate than M-LWDF for the non-
real-time user, without ompromising the stability of real-time users' queues. Meanwhile,
the QoS of the real-time users (delay performan e) is mu h better for the EXP rule as
4 It follows from the analysis in [1℄ that this s heme is not throughput-optimal.
 14 Users with Token Queues
70
Exp Rule
PROP FAIR
M−LWDF
60

50
Acheived rate − Desired rate (kbps)

40

30

20

10

−10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
User

Figure 2. Token Queue based s heduling. Data rate: 28.8 kbps per user. User 1 has
innite ba klog.

14 Users with Token Queues

0
10
EXP
M−LWDF
PROP FAIR

−1
10

−2
10
Pr(Delay > x)

−3
10

−4
10

−5
10
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
delay (m sec)

Figure 3. Token Queue based s heduling. Data rate: 28.8 kbps per user. User 1 has
innite ba klog. The delay distribution tails of users 2 and 14 are plotted.

ompared to the other rules. This observation an be explained by the fa t that when
token queues are small, the EXP rule is basi ally the same as the PROP FAIR rule.
However, when delays start be oming unbalan ed, the exponential term balan es the
delays. Further simulation results for other systems (see [11℄) also bear out our previous
observations. These results indi ate that we an indeed support 14 users with the required
rates and hen e, as dis ussed in Se tion 2.3, supporting more than any single users' average
hannel throughput!
4. CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we have ompared various s heduling algorithms to support a mixture of

real-time and non-real-time data in CDMA/HDR. We dened two performan e metri s,
namely, pa ket delays and guaranteed throughput. Throughput guarantees were imple-
mented using a token queue me hanism. With respe t to either these measures we found
that the EXP rule performs the best among the algorithms onsidered. We also investi-
gated the robustness of the EXP rule to the hoi e of its parameters. Our results show
that an intelligent s heduling algorithm, in onjun tion with a token queue me hanism
allows us to support a mixture of real-time and non-real-time data over HDR with high
eÆ ien y.
REFERENCES

1. M. Andrews, K. Kumaran, K. Ramanan, A. L. Stolyar, R. Vijayakumar, P. Whiting

\CDMA Data QoS S heduling on the Forward Link with Variable Channel Condi-
tions," Bell Laboratories Te hni al Report, April, 2000.
2. P.Bender, P.Bla k, M.Grob, R.Padovani, N.Sindhushayana, A.Viterbi,
\CDMA/HDR: A Bandwidth EÆ ient High Speed Wireless Data Servi e for
Nomadi Users," IEEE Communi ations Magazine, July 2000.
3. P. Bhagwat, P. Bhatta harya, A. Krishna and S. Tripathi, \Enhan ing throughput
over wireless LANs using hannel state dependent pa ket s heduling," Pro . IEEE
Info om'97, April 1997.
4. H. Chen, \Fluid Approximations and Stability of Multi lass Queueing Networks:
Work- onserving Dis iplines," Annals of Applied Probability, Vol. 5, (1995), pp. 637-
665.
5. J. G. Dai, \On the Positive Harris Re urren e for Open Multi lass Queueing Networks:
A Unied Approa h Via Fluid Limit Models," Annals of Applied Probability, Vol. 5,
(1995), pp. 49-77.
6. J. G. Dai and S. P. Meyn, \Stability and Convergen e of Moments for Open Multi-
lass Queueing Networks Via Fluid Limit Models," IEEE Transa tions on Automati
Control, Vol. 40, (1995), pp. 1889-1904.
7. C. Fragouli, V. Sivaraman and M. Srivastava, \Controlled multimedia wireless
link sharing via enhan ed lass-based queueing with hannel-state-dependent pa ket
s heduling," Pro . IEEE Info om'98, April 1998.
8. A. Jalali, R. Padovani, R. Pankaj, \Data Throughput of CDMA-HDR a High EÆ-
ien y - High Data Rate Personal Communi ation Wireless System," Pro . VTC-
2000-Spring.
9. F. Kelly, \Charging and Rate Control for Elasti TraÆ ," European Transa tions on
Tele ommuni ation, Vol. 8, 1997, pp. 33-37.
10. A.N. Rybko and A.L. Stolyar, \Ergodi ity of Sto hasti Pro esses Des ribing the
Operation of Open Queueing Networks," Problems of Information Transmission,
Vol. 28, (1992), pp. 199-220.
11. S. Shakkottai and A. L. Stolyar, \A Study of S heduling Algorithms for a Mixture
of Real- and Non-Real-Time Data in HDR," Bell Laboratories Te hni al Report,
O tober, 2000.
12. S. Shakkottai and A. L. Stolyar, \S heduling for Multiple Flows Sharing a Time-
Varying Channel: The Exponential Rule," Bell Laboratories Te hni al Report, De-
ember, 2000. Submitted.
13. S. Shakkottai and R. Srikant, \S heduling Real-Time TraÆ With Deadlines Over
a Wireless Channel," Pro . ACM Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Multimedia,
Seattle, WA, August 1999.
14. A.L. Stolyar, \On the Stability of Multi lass Queueing Networks: A Relaxed SuÆ ient
Condition via Limiting Fluid Pro esses," Markov Pro esses and Related Fields, 1(4),
1995, pp.491-512.
15. A. L. Stolyar and K. Ramanan, \Largest Weighted Delay First S heduling: Large
Deviations and Optimality," Annals of Applied Probability, Vol. 11, (2001), No.1.
16. L. Tassiulas and A. Ephremides, \Dynami Server Allo ation to Parallel Queue with
Randomly Varying Conne tivity," IEEE Tran. Info. Theory, Vol. 30, No. 2, Mar h
1993.
17. D. Tse, \Forward Link Multiuser Diversity Through Rate Adaptation and S hedul-
ing," Submitted to IEEE JSAC.
18. D. Zhang and K. M. Wasserman, \Sto hasti transmission poli ies for time-varying
hannels with memory under in omplete hannel state information," Pro . 38th An-
nual Allerton Conf. Commun., Control, and Comput., University of Illinois, Urbana,
IL, 2000.