- Experimental setup
and performance

metric - Comparison of
Resource Allocation

Policies - Effect of varying the skewness of the update probability distribution
- Which settings affect CAM most?
- Effect of monitor-to-change ratio
- Reallocating resources
- Performance of the Scheduling algorithm

Experimental evaluation

In this section, after explaining the setup for the experiments, we describe the results.

metric

**Uniform**- in which resources (monitoring tasks) are allocated uniformly across all pages, and
**Proportional**- in which resources are allocated proportional to change-frequencies of pages respectively.

Other experimental parameters are set as described below.

*N*_{q}: The number of queries submitted in the system, set to 500.*N*: The number of pages found relevant the for the queries submitted. This is also set to 500. This implies that set of relevant pages for queries have common elements in them.*C*: The number of monitoring tasks available. It is varied from 1000 to 50000 in our experiments. If*T*is set to be 15 minutes (for example, the Google News site is said to use crawlers which visit relevant sites every 15 minutes), then 50000 monitoring tasks would require a downloading speed of 56 documents/sec approximately.*Change frequency distribution*: The change frequencies ('s) are chosen according to a*Zipf*distribution with parameters*N*and . varies from 0 to 2. Such distributions run the spectrum from highly skewed (when is 2) to uniform (when is 0). Unless otherwise specified, is set to 2 in experiments.*Update probability distribution*: In our experiments, we have 480 update instants in*U*at uniform gaps throughout the duration*T*. For each experiment, we need to associate a probability with each update instant*u*_{i, j}. An actual update (or absence of an update) for page*i*at the*j*th update instant is materialized by tossing a coin with bias . For our experiments, the probability values are themselves generated from a Zipf distribution, clipped between 0 and 0.3. Using a Zipf distribution over biases them toward lower values and ensures that relatively few potential update instants are likely to be instantiated into an actual update for any page. Henceforth we will refer to this distribution as*update probability distribution*. News sites are often updated in a quasi-deterministic manner: at specific intervals, changes occur with some probability. This means the inter-update time distribution has multiple modes, which can be modeled by generating many ``humps'' in their update probability distribution, with probability varying in the vicinity of every hump in*Zipf*fashion. Note that the probabilities for all update instants of a page should sum up to expected change-frequency () of that page. Also note that we vary the Zipf skewness parameter of the update probability distribution from 0 to 2 in our experiments and so we get a corresponding update probability distribution for a page varying from a uniform to a highly skewed distribution. All this makes our experiments free from a priori assumptions about page change behavior and helps in evaluating our policies for real scenarios.*Weight of queries*: All queries are assigned the same*importance measure*(). This means that there is no distinction made among queries and they are defined to have equal importance.*Page weight distribution*: Recent studies [17] show that popularity of pages vary in a Zipfian fashion as shown in Fig 3. Drawing an analogy, we choose*r*_{i, j}, the relevance of page*j*for a query*i*, from another Zipf distribution. There is some evidence [19] that the popularity of a page is positively related to its rate of updates. Therefore, in our experiments, we make the more dynamic pages have higher relevance. The summation of relevance measures of a page for all the queries gives us the weight (*W*_{i}) for this page as discussed in Section 3. The distribution according to which*W*_{i}varies is referred to as*page weight distribution*.*Monitoring-change ratio*: denotes the ratio of the total number of monitoring tasks to : the number of actual changes expected in time*T*.

RIR | = | . |

Note that the maximum possible value of RIR is 1 and it is attained by setting

Policies

In this experiment, we evaluate the aforementioned resource allocation polices and also observe the effects of update probability distribution and page weight distribution on their performance.

Uniform page weights and update

probabilities

We make both these distributions uniform and set the Zipf
parameter of change frequency distribution to 2 as shown in
Figure 2.
Uniform page weight distribution means that all pages have equal
importance while uniform update probability distribution leads to
equal probability of change to a page at any update instant
in *T*.

Figure 4 shows the performance of different resource allocation policies. There are two important observations.

- The proportional policy performs better than its uniform
counterpart. This is very surprising as earlier studies showed the
reverse to be true [3,18]. The reason becomes clear when we
delve into the nature of the crawling vs. the monitoring problem.
In our case, we answer continuous queries and our aim is to detect
as many changes as possible. So when all other parameters
(page-weight and update probability distribution) are uniform, one
would certainly expect more benefits by monitoring those pages
which have high change frequency () because these pages have
considerable chances of changing. This is what the proportional
policy does and so it performs better than the uniform policy.
Earlier studies solved the (convex optimization) problem of
answering discrete queries and aimed to maximize
*freshness*of pages. In that problem domain, the performance of the uniform policy was better than the proportional policy. We offer a formal proof of why uniform does not work as well as proportional for continuous queries in Appendix A. - The optimal policy also allocates more monitoring tasks to more dynamic pages but it does it even more aggressively than the proportional policy. Figure 5 shows that CAM allocates all its monitoring tasks to only a few pages (for clarity, for the sake of this graph, 50 pages of consecutive page indices have been grouped into a bin) and delivers most of the change information from these pages to CQs. The pages monitored are those which have high probability of actually changing. Proportional does this too, but, as its name indicates, it can only allocate tasks in a proportional manner, while CAM does it in a more biased fashion and get even better performance. It is evident from the graph that optimal policy performs 300% better than the proportional policy and around 600% better than the uniform policy.

Skewed page update probabilities

We skew the update probability distribution with Zipf parameter set to 1. So all pages are still of equal importance, but for each page, the probability that an update instant instantiates to an actual update is no longer the same for all update instants.

Figure 6 shows the performance in this setting. Again, CAM performs best leaving other allocation policies far behind. It is 12 times better than the uniform policy. But in this case, the pages which are monitored by CAM turn out to be quite diversified as pages with even lower change frequency have some update instants with a good chance of actually changing, as shown in Figure 7.

When page weights are skewed

If we make page-weight distribution skewed while keeping update probability distribution uniform, we find that Optimal again performs far better than others, as shown in Figure 8. Also, now it allocates monitoring tasks to those pages which have high importance and a higher probability of getting changed.

In summary, CAM's resource allocation approach performs better than the previously proposed uniform and proportional approaches across a wide spectrum of distributions. In particular, the more skewed the distributions, the more pronounced the performance improvement.

Figure 9 compares
performance of different resource allocation policies when
monitoring-to-change ratio^{} is kept at 9 and the page
weight distribution is uniform.

It is clear that for this data set, CAM's resource allocation policy always performs better than the other resource allocation policies. To emphasize the difference, we varied the update probability distribution keeping other parameters the same as before. As is evident from Figure 9, CAM's resource allocation policy starts performing even better than other policies as update distribution is made more and more skewed. It exhibits a 5-fold improvement over uniform resource allocation policy when the Zipf parameter is 0, and a 10-fold improvement when the Zipf parameter is 1.5. This is because CAM monitors pages preferentially at those update instants which have a high probability of returning relevant information. As the update probability distribution is made more and more skewed, CAM responds to the skewness by selecting the most beneficial instants for monitoring, thus performing even better than before. The uniform and proportional policies do not take into account the granularity of update instants and decide to monitor based on weight and change frequency. (Note that when the Zipf parameter is set to zero, it does not mean that update probabilities become uniformly distributed, instead of this it means that all update probability values occur equal number of times.)

In the previous experiment, we observed that even when we have nine times more monitoring tasks available than expected number of changes, the loss of information remains significant. This is because of the distributed and uncertain nature of page change behavior which make the number of monitoring tasks required for good performance very large (Section 5.2.1). In the ideal case, we will require continuous monitoring of web pages. Even a large number of monitoring tasks (until they become comparable the to number of update instants) will not be of much help.

Figure 10 shows how performance varies with the update probability distribution of page change behavior. It is also evident that pages with almost uniform update probability distribution will require more monitoring than the skewed case. Luckily, the Web is not updated with a flat distribution. A recent measurement study by Fetterly and others [6] showed that most web pages do not change much, and that a page's previous change rate is a good predictor of its future change rate. This means that the most favorable scenario for CAM is, in fact, reality.

We find that page weight distribution also affects the performance in a significant way. This is intuitive: if we can somehow figure out during the tracking phase that a particular set of pages is serving a major part of reporting to users for answering query, then we can improve our performance by assigning them a major share of monitoring tasks. Figure 11 shows the effect of page-weight distribution on the performance of allocation techniques. Extending CAM to take advantage of further meta-information about the change behavior of web pages will help respond to CQs even more efficiently, and is left for future work.

Here we evaluate the practical application of our proposed scheme. As evident from Figure 12, 90% of the Information is returned in our technique when monitor-change ratio is 20.

Without using CAM, retrieving 90% of the information would require monitoring of at least 432 instants while CAM needs only 20 monitoring tasks (5% of the maximum needed monitoring tasks) .

While describing CAM, we mentioned that after every epoch of
length *T*, page change statistics
are updated and resource allocation decisions reevaluated for the
next epoch. This process may become very expensive, especially if
*T* is small. Therefore, we next
study the effect of the resource allocation delay to determine how
often it might be beneficial to reallocate the resources.

We start with page update probability distribution's Zipf parameter set to 1. Then we generate an actual event based on this update probability distribution by tossing a biased coin at every update instant and declaring a change at an instant if it turns up heads.

Before the next epoch, we modify the update probability distribution based on the recent epoch by modifying update probabilities ( ) of those update instants which get monitored in the epoch. We do this modification simply by estimating the average rate of occurrence of updates: if a page was updated five times in the last 10 monitoring instants, the probability of expecting a change at the next update instant is simply set to 0.5.

Then we reallocate resources accommodating this new update probability distribution. As Figure 13 shows, performance of such a reallocation policy does increase in the initial epochs and then becomes steady. This is what one would expect because after a large number of epochs, the update probability distribution itself becomes steady.

We also plotted two more graphs, as shown in Figure 14, to study the effect of delayed resource allocation. Here the statistics are updated after several epochs. We find that it is not necessary to recompute resource allocation after every epoch; it can be delayed without incurring any significant loss provided the tracking phase was used to capture the initial page change behavior. This study shows that it is possible to adapt to the change behavior using the CAM approach and derive additional benefits in terms of the quality of information returned.

In this experiment, we test our scheduling algorithm and show its performance. The Zipf parameter of the change frequency distribution is set to 2 and that of the update probability distribution is set to 1.

Sizes of the documents are generated as shown in Figure 15 [9]. Also, the more popular pages' sizes are set to be smaller [5]. We define the average monitoring capacity as the available bandwidth divided by average size of documents.

As shown in Figure 16, our scheduling algorithm performs very well, usually accommodating all desired monitoring tasks recommended by the resource allocation phase, when the number of monitoring tasks is less than the average monitoring capacity. Even when the number of monitoring tasks required to be scheduled exceeds the average monitoring capacity, the loss of information incurred in the scheduling phase remains quite negligible in comparison to the resource allocation phase. The two kinds of losses incurred are:

- As the number of monitoring tasks to be scheduled becomes more than the average monitoring capacity, some tasks remain undone and so some loss of information occurs.
- As number of monitoring tasks increases, the chances of exceeding the monitoring capacity at any time also becomes high. So these monitoring tasks get delayed, leading to loss of information.

The experimental results lead to the following observations:

- CAM produces query results with higher coherency than either Proportional or Uniform policies. Often the amount of returned information with CAM's approach is 5-10 times that returned by Uniform or Proportional. The more skewed the page update and page weight distribution, the better the improvement. Increased availability of monitoring resources (as indicated by the monitoring-to-change ratio) also leads to a larger performance improvement with CAM than with other approaches.
- By deploying a relatively small number of monitoring tasks, e.g., 5% of the total number of update instants, CAM's resource allocation and scheduling algorithms are able to return a very large proportion, in the above case, 90%, of the changed information.
- It is possible to improve performance further by updating the page change statistics using of the changes monitored during each epoch. We showed that in fact, it is possible to achieve considerable performance improvement even if such adaptation is not done after every epoch, but once after several epochs suffices.