<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>LIFO-Backpressure Achieves Near Optimal Utility-Delay Tradeoff · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1008.4895/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1008.4895/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>LIFO-Backpressure Achieves Near Optimal Utility-Delay Tradeoff — mentioned by jinpan</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20291942</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1008.4895:20291942</guid><pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2019 05:24:10 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Another fun surprising result from queuing theory is that if you have a buffer of pending RPC&amp;#x27;s that have some deadline, it is better to service them in a &amp;quot;unfair&amp;quot; LIFO order, as opposed to a fairer FIFO order. [0] goes into more gory details. In the bank example from the article, LIFO would dramatically shorten the median wait time (~5 minutes), at the cost of really upsetting customers [1]. In the case of a support queue, where the waiters are blind to each other, this cost could be reconsidered ... [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.4895.pdf [1] from the article, &amp;quot;We really, really hate it…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1008.4895/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.OC</category></item></channel></rss>
