Load Prediction in Communications Network

Kongluan Lin
QCIS UTS, Sydney, Australia linkongluan@gmail.com

Ante Prodan
QCIS UTS, Sydney, Australia anteprodan@gmail.com

Simeon Simoff
CM UWS, Sydney, Australia simoff@uws.edu.au

John Debenham
QCIS UTS, Sydney, Australia debenham.uts@gmail.com

AbstractThe prediction of load in communications networks provides a scientific basis for conserving power that is currently attracting considerable interest. This paper reports the results of experiments to predict communications network load using real network data. The problem considered is simply to predict whether load is "generally" increasing, decreasing or unchanged in the immediate future. Various linear and non-linear predictive models were investigated. We conclude that the most efficient solution to the problem considered is a subtle combination of a linear regression model and a highly reactive model applied to the data aggregated at two levels of granularity. Keywords: load prediction, communications networks

I.

INTRODUCTION AND RELATED WORK

Power conservation in both wireless and wired communications networks is a key issue particularly when low capacity batteries are deployed [6]. Recently there has been a substantial research effort with the aim of conserving power in communications networks, and many approaches have been proposed. Most approaches are based either on maximizing the number of stations that can be put into sleep mode, or on minimizing the power for transmission [5]. The cross-layer power management (CLPM) scheme regulates transmitting power based on the node density at the receiver node [8]. The receiver node obtains its node density information from network layer and then sends it to the transmitter. The transmitting node can then adjust its transmitting power such that only the required amount of power is used for communication, and interference is consequently reduced [7]. Lin et. al. propose a new energy-efficient dynamic power management (DPM) scheme, in which battery status, the probability of event generation and optimal geographical density control (OGDC) are taken into consideration to minimize the number of power-active nodes [4]. The Quorum-based Power Saving (QPS) protocols are used to conserve power in wireless networks, but it remains a challenge to apply it to the Mobile Ad hoc networks (MANETs) as the timers of nodes are usually asynchronous, the incurred delay are expected to be adaptive, and the network topology is asymmetric [8]. An Asynchronous, Adaptive, and Asymmetric (AAA) power management protocol proposed by Wu and Chen are able to fulfill the unique requirements of MANETs [8]. Power management protocols such as IEEE 802.11, PSM, S-MAC, SCP-MAC, and B-MAC conserve power by

managing sleep and duty cycles. In a receiver-driven protocol such as PSM or SCP-MAC, the sleep schedule is synchronized, and nodes only exchange messages during their regular wakeup period. However, synchronization cost dominates power consumption when data traffic is low. In a sender-driven protocol, synchronization of the sleep schedule is not needed, but the sender needs to wake up the receiver each time that packets need to be sent, which causes a long delay [3]. Harvesting power from the environment is also suggested to prolong the life of battery-based communications systems [2]. However, different nodes in a network have different power harvesting opportunities, and an efficient scheme for assignment of workload needs to be developed that takes account of the battery status of each node [1]. Power can also be conserved if load can be accurately predicted. If each node has reliable forecasts of load then it may adjust its own power demands. This approach is effective if the load prediction method is simple, fast and requires low computational overheads. This paper addresses power consumption by predicting load using tools from data mining. First, data is collected and transformed. A variety of predictive models for network load were considered and evaluated. Finally, an efficient solution is proposed that is based on a subtle combination of a linear regression and a highly reactive model applied to the data that has been aggregated at two levels of granularity. II.
MINING NETWORK LOAD

Our overall aim is to identify a suitable architecture for load prediction in communications networks generally. To do this we based our experiments on Ethernet load data obtained from the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS). This data is characteristic of load data in communications networks. Our hypothesis is that the solution to the prediction of UTS Ethernet load will indicate the architecture for load prediction in communications networks. In each zone of UTS, network load is limited by factors including the number of students in it, the time of day and the available Internet bandwidth. The total network capacity is bounded by these factors. An agent is located in each zone. It records the network load in the zone over a period of time, and then analyses it to build a predictive model for that zone. Based on its predictive model, each agent can then forecast its zones network load. In this experiment, the predicted network load for each zone is compared with the real, observed network load, and

the comparison is then used to refine the forecasting method. A. Data preprocessing, Transformation Table I shows the column headings for the raw data some columns have the same meaning. For example, Traffic in (Volume) and Traffic in (Volume) (Raw) represent the same information; both of raws stand for the inbound network traffic volume within a minute. These two columns use different units to measure the inbound network volume, Kilobyte and Byte respectively. Since they represent the same information, only one of the two columns is considered. In our experiment, data is reconstructed with only three columns: Data Time, Traffic in and Traffic out. B. Identification of Critical Factors We now identify the factors that should be considered when predicting the network load. Here, we denote the total inbound and outbound network load within the minute as In(T) and Out(T) respectively. An intuitive assumption is that In(T) could have linear relationships with its previous values like In(T -1) and In(T -2). Similarly, Out(T) could have linear relationships with its previous values like Out(T-1) and Out(T-2). Another assumption is that In(T) may have some linear relationships with Out(T-1) and Out(T-2), and similarly, Out(T) may have some linear relationships with In(T-1) and In(T-2). As to how strong the relationships are, could be identified by calculating correlation coefficient. 1) Correlation Coefficient. Correlation coefficient, also known as Pearsons sample coefficient of linear correlation, is a measure of the tendency of two variables to vary together. It is often denoted by r and defined as follows:
r =

TABLE II. Coefficient between: In(T)/Out(T) In(T)/In(T-1) Out(T)/Out(T-1) Out(T)/In(T-1) In(T)/Out(T-1) Coefficient between: In(T)/In(T-2) Out(T)/Out(T-2) Out(T)/In(T-2) In(T)/Out(T-2) TABLE III. Coefficient between: In(T)/Out(T) In(T)/In(T-1) Out(T)/Out(T-1) Out(T)/In(T-1) In(T)/Out(T-1) Coefficient between: In(T)/In(T-2) Out(T)/Out(T-2) Out(T)/In(T-2) In(T)/Out(T-2)

BASED ON 1 MINUTE GRANULARITY DATA B1 0.35 0.89 0.90 0.35 0.33 B1 0.76 0.83 0.34 0.32 B3 0.27 0.88 0.90 0.21 0.26 B3 0.71 0.85 0.18 0.27 B4 0.50 0.83 0.92 0.47 0.49 B4 0.72 0.82 0.43 0.46 B5 0.12 0.90 0.96 0.12 0.12 B5 0.81 0.93 0.12 0.11 B10 0.40 0.95 0.85 0.39 0.35 B10 0.89 0.65 0.39 0.31

BASED ON 5 MINUTE GRANULARITY DATA B1 0.40 0.67 0.86 0.38 0.35 B1 0.50 0.81 0.35 0.32 B3 0.28 0.66 0.79 0.14 0.30 B3 0.48 0.61 0.09 0.27 B4 0.56 0.76 0.73 0.47 0.50 B4 0.61 0.58 0.42 0.45 B5 0.13 0.82 0.95 0.12 0.12 B5 0.69 0.91 0.11 0.12 B10 0.44 0.79 0.63 0.45 0.27 B10 0.58 0.51 0.42 0.18

XY X N

X Y N

Y N

(1)

An r value of 1 or -1 indicates a perfect linear relationship between variable X and Y, while value of 0 means variable X is independent of Y. If r=1 then Y always increases as X increases. If r =-1 then Y always decreases as X increases. 2) Data Preparation. To investigate whether the relationships will be affected by the granularity of data, data is aggregated into 5 minute blocks. 3) Calculating Correlation Coefficient. To calculate correlation coefficient, CORREL(), an embedded function of Microsoft Excel is used. Table 4 and Table 5 show correlation coefficiency calculated based on data of 1 minute granularity and 5 minutes granularity respectively. 4) Interpretation of the results. Based on the data of 1
TABLE I. Attribute Date Time Sum (Volume) Sum (Volume) (Raw) Traffic in (Volume) Traffic in (Volume) (Raw) Traffic out (volume) Traffic out (volume) (Raw) DATA DESCREPTION Description Date time Total load within a minute (KB) Total load within a minute (Byte) Inbound network load in a minute (KB) Inbound network load in a minute (Byte) Outbound network load in a minute (KB) Outbound network load in a minute (Byte)

minute granularity, Interpretation of the results. Based on the data of 1 minute granularity (Table II), both the correlation coefcient between In(T) and In(T-1) and that between Out(T) and Out(T-1) are very high, ranging from 0.83 to 0.95 and from 0.85 to 0.96 respectively within the ve zones. In contrast, the correlation coefcient between In(T) and Out(T-1) or between Out(T) and In(T-1) is very low, less than 0.5 for all the ve zones. The correlation coefficient between In(T) and In(T-1) is higher than that between In(T) and In(T-2), which also applies to the outbound network traffic load. In addition, it can be observed that the correlation coefficient between In(T) and In(T-1) based on 1 minute granularity data is greater than that based on 5 minute granularity data (Table III). Therefore, it can be concluded that current network traffic load has a strong linear relationship with preceding network traffic load. That is to say, the network load recorded in the previous minute can be used to predict the network load in the next minute. Also, data of 1 minute granularity is a better foundation for predictive models than data of 5 minute granularity. C. Models Based on a Moving Averages Linear regression is especially suitable for prediction of smooth data. If data is coarse, the predicted value will significantly deviate from the real value. Therefore, a method needs to be used to smooth coarse data. For this purpose we selected Moving Average method. 1) Standard deviation of Estimation. We use standard deviation of estimation as a measure of the accuracy of predictive models. It is defined as follows:

 est =

(Y

Y ') N

(2)

Where Y is an actual value and Y is a predicted value while N is the number of values to predict. 2) Description of Moving Average Approach. Moving average, is a type of filter used to analyse a set of data points by creating a series of averages of different subsets of the full data set. Moving average is commonly used with time series data to smooth out short-term fluctuations and highlight longer-term trends or cycles. Given a series of numbers, and a fixed subset size, the moving average can be obtained. The average of the first subset of numbers is calculated. The fixed subset is moved forward to the new subset of numbers, and its average is calculated. The process is repeated over the entire series of numbers. The fixed subset size in this experiment is arbitrarily assigned to 5, and the average is calculated as follows (Taking inbound load for example):

Figure 2. Goodness of fit generated by models (4), (5) and (6) for outbound network traffic load prediction

Ain(T ) = In(T i ) / 5
i =1

(3)

Figure 3. Comparision of goodness of fit between models based on two moving averages and three moving averages

3) Models. Six predictive linear models were considered based on Ain(T) and Aout(T) as follows:
Model (1): In(T)=f(Ain(T-1), Ain(T-2)) Model (2): In(T)=f(Aout(T-1),Aout(T-2)) Model (3): In(T)=f(Ain(T-1),Ain(T-2),Aout(T-1),Aout(T-2)) Model (4): Out(T)=f(Aout(T-1),Aout(T-2)) Model (5): Out(T)=f(Ain(T-1),Ain(T-2)) Model (6): Out(T)=f(Ain(T-1),Ain(T-2),Aout(T-1),Aout(T-2))

4) Deriving the Models. An embedded function of Microsoft EXCEL - linest(), is used to calculate linear regression according to these models, and the goodness of fit is used to evaluate the performance of the models. By using Model (1) as an example we explain the process of model construction. Model (1) can be expressed as In(T)=a*In(T-1)+b*In(T2)+c, where a, b and c are constants. Based on the three columns of data, In(T), In(T-1) and In(T-2), the constants a, b and c will be calculated by applying linear regression. The standard deviations of estimate generated by the models for inbound and outbound network load prediction are displayed in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 respectively.

5) Interpretation of the Results. Models (1), (2) and (3) are used to predict inbound network traffic load while Models (4), (5) and (6) are used to predict outbound network traffic load. Models (3) and (6) have the least standard deviation when used to predict inbound and outbound network traffic load respectively. It is interesting to find that the deviation of Model (1) is slightly greater than that of Model (3). Similarly, the deviation of Model (4) is slightly greater than that of Model (6). In order to simplify our approach, we decide to build predictive models by improving models (1) and (4). D. Models Based on Three Moving Averages In the Models (1) and (4), network traffic load is predicted based on the previous two moving averages. Then, we consider a possibility of improved performance when these two models are based on the previous three moving averages. So new models are proposed as follows: Model (7): In(T)=f(Ain(T-1), Ain(T-2), Ain(T-3)) Model (8): Out(T)=f(Aout(T-1),Aout(T-2), Aout(T-3)) 1) Deriving the Models. Goodness of fit for models (1), (4), (7) and (8) is shown in Fig. 8. 2) Interpretation of the Results. Models (7) and (8) outperform models (1) and (4) respectively, because the standard deviations generated by models (7) and (8) are smaller than those generated by models (1) and (4). E. Models based on three independent variables The models described in Section D have large goodness of fit. This is due to their poor performance when there are significant oscillations in network load. To deal with these situations, we develop a new approach based on the assumption that using the previous 3 real network load

Figure 1. Goodness of fit generated by models (1), (2) and (3) for inbound network traffic load prediction

Figure 5. Sample example of successful prediciton

Figure 4. Comparision of goodness of fit between models based on three moving averages and three independent variables

values (three independent variables) for prediction will provide more accurate prediction than using the average network load data. Based on this assumption, the following two models are proposed: Model (9): In(T)=f(In(T-1),In(T-2),In(T-3)) Model (10): Out(T)=f(Out(T-1),Out(T-2),Out(T-3)) 1) Deriving the Models. Goodness of fit for models (9) and (10) is shown in Fig. 9. 2) Interpretation of the Results. Models (9) and (10) perform better than models (7) and (8), because the standard deviations of the former two models are smaller than those of the latter two models. F. Experiments applied on an hour basis Although models (9) and (10) have the smallest goodness of fit among all the predictive models of inbound and outbound network load, the calculated goodness of fit is still significant. Generally, the increase of goodness of fit is caused by sudden and dramatic fluctuations in network traffic load. It still needs to be established how well these models work on different type of data (smooth and coarse). When we consider network load data for a whole day it is more likely that the data will be coarse. However, when we consider the same data in segments that are an hour long, most of the segments will be smooth. Therefore, the models are considering an hour long segments. In this experiment, the first 40-minute data is used to build models, and then the next 20-minute network traffic load is predicted by using the models. We obtained data from five zones. For each zones network load was recorded over 72 hours (3 days). That is to say, linear regression would be calculated for 360 times in total if the models are applied on an hour basis. This involves a significant repetitive work. In order to accelerate this process, I developed program in JAVA programming language to automate calculation of linear regression for the whole period. The program is tested by comparing the results generated by the program and the results obtained by using Microsoft EXCEL. Exactly the same results are obtained in both cases. 1) Deriving the Models. The just described models provide accurate network load forecasts for certain time periods, however for some other periods forecasts are not sufficiently accurate. During this performance assessment we generated numerous results, here we only display two

Figure 6. Sample example of unsuccessful prediction

sample examples of successful and unsuccessful forecast situations for inbound network load. 2) Interpretation of the Results. Linear model Ein(T) stands for the estimated value of the inbound network load, while Ein(T)-In(T) is the deviation of estimated inbound load from the real inbound load. The two results based on different data samples (coarse and smooth data) differ dramatically in predicting network load. According to the successful prediction, the deviation of inbound network load is very small, with its absolute value varying from 8 KB to 2882 KB. Its maximum deviation 2882 KB is less than 9% of the average inbound load 34,000 KB. In contrast, the maximum deviation of inbound network load in the unsuccessful prediction incredibly reaches 57,892 KB, which even surpasses the average inbound network load 40,000 KB. This situation also applies to the outbound network load prediction. The reason why the models contribute to a good prediction is that, the 40-minute data used for building the models is very smooth. Also, the real network load data for the 20 minutes to predict is smooth as well. Instead, in the unsuccessful prediction, the 40-minute data for model building are coarse. Since the models work well for the smooth data, as to how to build models based on coarse data and make it work well for prediction would be the next challenge. Besides, this model is not feasible for a continuous prediction, because the prediction of the last 20-minute network load in each hour is based on the model built with the first 40-minute network load, and the first 40-minute network load is not predicted. III. REALTIME CONTINUOUS PREDICTIVE MODELS

In contrast to the previous models, in this section we explore models based on continuous input data stream that generate predictions continuously. Furthermore, since the problem of prediction of the outbound network load is very similar to that of the prediction of inbound network load, in this experiment we will consider prediction of the inbound network load. The model based on Model (11) and one instance of the same model is used to predict network load. The weight

constants used in Model (11) - instance A are based on results of extensive simulations. Model (11): Ein(T)=f(In(T-1),In(T-2),In(T-3)) Model (11) instance A: Ein(T)=0.85*In(T-1)+0.1*In(T2)+0.05*In(T-3) Goodness of fit: Dr(T)=(Ein(T-1)-In(T-1))/In(T-1) Goodness of fit ratio threshold: Threshold (i.e. 0.5, 0.3 and 0.1) At first, a counter is set to 0. The counter is increased when the goodness of fit calculated for the obtained prediction is within the given threshold. When the goodness of fit is above given threshold than counter is reset to 0. Model (11) instance A is applied to predict network load whenever the counter is smaller than 5. When counter is 5, Model (11) can be built based on the previous 5 network load data and used to predict the next network load. When the counter is greater than 5 already built Model (11) is applied. The prediction procedure is illustrated in Fig.7. 1) Interpretation of the Results. As it can be seen from Fig.8, as the threshold decreases, the current models perform better. However, the standard deviation generated by the current prediction remains greater than that generated by purely using Model (11). The advantage of current models is that they are easy to be built and implemented, and the standard deviation is only slightly greater than that generated by only using Model (11). IV. EXPERIMENT CONCLUSIONS

Figure 8. Goodness of fit obtained from Model (11) and from the combination of Model (11) and its instance

The prediction of network load is influenced by different factors such as smoothness of historical data, granularity of historical data and sudden surges or drops in the load. The historical network load data obtained from UTS zones is not smooth, i.e., the standard deviation generated from such data has a high value. Also, the data obtained through the traffic load measurements used in this experiment is of a granularity of 1 minute. The provision of data with a smaller granularity may increase accuracy of the prediction of network load,
Counter=0

because the speed of load fluctuations could be a new factor taken into consideration for prediction. In addition, some patterns for short-term fluctuations of network load are identified, but more frequently, network load is oscillating randomly, making the prediction rather difficult. To conclude, the short-term continuous prediction based on a subtle combination of a linear regression based model and a highly reactive model applied to data aggregated at two levels of granularity is the most efficient way to predict network load e.g. a combination of Model (11) and Instance A as described in Section III. Furthermore, compared with non-linear models such as Markov Chains or neural networks, our model does not require significant computational or storage resources. Also, it reacts very quickly to dramatic network load changes. REFERENCES
[1] Aman, K., Jason, H., Sadaf, Z. & Mani, S. 2007, Power Management in Energy Harvesting Sensor Networks, ACM Transactions on Enbeded Computing Systems, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1-38. Aman, K., Jason, H., Sadaf, Z., Mani, S & Vijay, R. 2006, Harvesting Aware Power Management for Sensor Networks, Proceedings of the 43th Annual Design Automation Conference, ACM, pp. 651-656. Farhana, A. & Robin, K. 2009, Poster Abstract: Neighborhoodbased Power Management, ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1559-1662. Lin, C., Xiong N., Park, J.H. & Kim, T. 2009, Dynamic Power Management in New Architecture of Wireless Sensor Networks, International Journal of Communication Systems, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1559-1662. Ming, L. & Ming, T.L. 2009, a Power-Saving Algorithm Combining Power Management and Power Control for Multihop IEEE 802.11 Ad Hoc Networks, International Journal of Ad Hoc and Ubiquitous Computing, vol.4, no. 3/4, pp. 168-173. Ronny, Y.K. & Shantidev, M. 2010, Advanced Power Management Techniques in Next-generation Wireless Networks, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1559-1662. Sarkar, M. & Gupta, A. 2009, Power Management in Wireless Adhoc Networks with Directional Antennas, International Journal of Computer and Network Security, vol.2, no. 6, pp. 20-29. Wu, S.H., Chen, C.M., & Chen, M.S., 2009, AAA: Asynchronous, Adaptive and Asymmetric Power Management for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Computer Communiations, IEEE, pp. 1-5.

[2]

[3]

[4]
=5 Counter <,> or =5? >5 Apply Model(11) Calculate Dr(T) Apply Model (12) <5

Build Model(11)

[5]

[6]

Yes Counter=0

Dr(T)> Threshold?

No Counter=Counter+1

[7]

[8] Figure 7. Algorithmfor combining two approaches for load prediction