CN111865705A - Scheduling performance evaluation method and device - Google Patents

Abstract

Embodiments of the present invention provide a scheduling performance evaluation method and device. The method includes: quantifying and evaluating each indicator according to the collected data, the indicators include scheduling fairness, system throughput and/or QoS satisfaction; performing weighted operation on the quantized indicators to evaluate the comprehensive scheduling performance of the system ; The calculation formula of the comprehensive scheduling performance of the system is as follows: SP=α*Th+β*CS+γ*F, where α+β+γ=1, 0≤α≤1, 0≤β≤1, 0≤ γ≤1; SP is the weighted operation of Th, CS and F, α, β, γ are weighting factors, Th is the system throughput performance, CS is the QoS satisfaction, F is the scheduling fairness; 0<SP≤1, SP The larger the value, the better the comprehensive scheduling performance. The embodiment of the present invention performs quantification and weighting operations in combination with scheduling fairness, system throughput, and QoS satisfaction, comprehensively evaluates scheduling performance, and can set corresponding weights according to different application scenarios, with wide and flexible use scenarios.

Description

Scheduling performance evaluation method and device

technical field

The present invention relates to the field of communication technologies, and in particular, to a scheduling performance evaluation method and device.

Background technique

At present, the evaluation methods for scheduling performance are basically the technology of algorithm design, and there is no specific method for evaluating algorithms.

Different application scenarios have different requirements for QoS (Quality of Service) indicators, user fairness, and throughput. For example, some application scenarios do not consider QoS, and some application scenarios do not need to consider user fairness or system throughput. Some evaluation methods are not comprehensive and specific enough to realize comprehensive evaluation of different application scenarios and different scheduling requirements.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In view of the problems in the prior art, embodiments of the present invention provide a scheduling performance evaluation method and apparatus.

An embodiment of the present invention provides a scheduling performance evaluation method, including: determining indicators to be considered and the weight of each indicator according to business scenarios and scheduling requirements; collecting relevant data according to the indicators to be considered, the relevant data including cell throughput, scheduling Number of resources, scheduling times, QoS delay, QoS service packet loss rate and guaranteed rate GBR; the method further includes:

Quantify and evaluate various indicators according to the collected data, the indicators include scheduling fairness, system throughput and/or QoS satisfaction;

Perform weighted operations on the quantized indicators to evaluate the overall scheduling performance of the system;

The calculation formula of the comprehensive scheduling performance of the system is as follows:

SP=α*Th+β*CS+γ*F

Among them, α+β+γ=1, 0≤α≤1, 0≤β≤1, 0≤γ≤1;

SP is the weighted operation of Th, CS and F, α, β, γ are weighting factors, Th represents system throughput performance, CS represents QoS satisfaction, and F represents scheduling fairness;

0<SP≤1, the larger the SP, the better the comprehensive scheduling performance.

An embodiment of the present invention provides a scheduling performance evaluation device, including: a determination unit, used for determining indicators to be considered and the weight of each indicator according to business scenarios and scheduling requirements; a collection unit, used for collecting relevant data according to the indicators to be considered, The relevant data includes cell throughput, number of scheduling resources, scheduling times, QoS delay, QoS service packet loss rate and guaranteed rate GBR; the device further includes:

a first evaluation unit, configured to quantify and evaluate each index according to the collected data, where the index includes scheduling fairness, system throughput and/or QoS satisfaction;

The second evaluation unit is used to perform a weighted operation on the quantized indicators to evaluate the comprehensive scheduling performance of the system;

The calculation formula of the comprehensive scheduling performance of the system is as follows:

SP=α*Th+β*CS+γ*F

Among them, α+β+γ=1, 0≤α≤1, 0≤β≤1, 0≤γ≤1;

SP is the weighted operation of Th, CS and F, α, β, γ are weighting factors, Th represents system throughput performance, CS represents QoS satisfaction, and F represents scheduling fairness;

0<SP≤1, the larger the SP, the better the comprehensive scheduling performance.

An embodiment of the present invention further provides an electronic device, including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and running on the processor, where the processor implements the above scheduling performance evaluation method when executing the program.

Embodiments of the present invention further provide a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, on which a computer program is stored, and when the program is executed by a processor, the above-mentioned scheduling performance evaluation method is implemented.

The scheduling performance evaluation method and device provided by the embodiments of the present invention perform quantification and weighting operations in combination with scheduling fairness, system throughput, and QoS satisfaction, comprehensively evaluate scheduling performance, and can set corresponding weights according to different application scenarios, and use scenarios Broad and flexible.

Description of drawings

In order to more clearly illustrate the embodiments of the present invention or the technical solutions in the prior art, the following briefly introduces the accompanying drawings that need to be used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art. Obviously, the accompanying drawings in the following description These are some embodiments of the present invention. For those of ordinary skill in the art, other drawings can also be obtained according to these drawings without creative efforts.

FIG. 1 is a schematic flowchart of a scheduling performance evaluation method provided by an embodiment of the present invention;

2 is a schematic diagram of an evaluation device applying the scheduling performance evaluation method provided by an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 3 is a schematic flowchart of a scheduling performance evaluation method provided by an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 4 is a schematic structural diagram of a scheduling performance evaluation method and apparatus provided by an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 5 is a schematic structural diagram of an electronic device according to an embodiment of the present invention.

Detailed ways

In order to make the purposes, technical solutions and advantages of the embodiments of the present invention clearer, the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings in the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments These are some embodiments of the present invention, but not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those of ordinary skill in the art without creative efforts shall fall within the protection scope of the present invention.

FIG. 1 shows a schematic flowchart of a scheduling performance evaluation method provided by an embodiment of the present invention.

An embodiment of the present invention provides a scheduling performance evaluation method, including: determining indicators to be considered and the weight of each indicator according to business scenarios and scheduling requirements; collecting relevant data according to the indicators to be considered, the relevant data including cell throughput, scheduling Number of resources, scheduling times, QoS delay, QoS service packet loss rate and guaranteed rate GBR, as shown in Figure 1, the method further includes:

S11. Quantify and evaluate each index according to the collected data, where the index includes scheduling fairness, system throughput and/or QoS satisfaction;

Specifically, according to the consideration requirements, through corresponding data collection, the corresponding quantitative indicators are calculated: scheduling fairness, throughput, and QoS satisfaction, which respectively indicate the quality of performance such as fairness, throughput, and QoS satisfaction.

FIG. 2 shows an evaluation apparatus to which the scheduling performance evaluation method provided by the embodiment of the present invention is applied.

As shown in FIG. 2 , the device is divided into four parts: an evaluated part, a triggering part, a scheduling data collection part, and a result analysis and evaluation part. Among them, the base station and the terminal are the participants of the scheduling, and the base station belongs to the evaluated part; the channel simulator belongs to the trigger part, which generates interference, path loss, etc. to simulate the real wireless environment, triggering the change of the channel conditions between the terminal and the base station, and then triggering the terminal to be in different under the channel quality. The scheduling and collection module is responsible for continuously collecting information such as cell throughput, scheduling times of each user, number of scheduling resources for each user, GBR (Guranteed Bit Rate, guaranteed bit rate) bearing rate, QoS service delay, QoS service packet loss rate and other information. The more, the more accurate the evaluation result. The scheduling performance evaluation module is responsible for analyzing and evaluating the collected cell throughput, the number of scheduling times for each user, the number of scheduling resources for each user, the GBR bearing rate, the QoS service delay, and the QoS service packet loss rate.

S12. Perform a weighted operation on the quantized indicators to evaluate the comprehensive scheduling performance of the system;

The calculation formula of the comprehensive scheduling performance of the system is as follows:

SP=α*Th+β*CS+γ*F

Among them, α+β+γ=1, 0≤α≤1, 0≤β≤1, 0≤γ≤1;

SP is the weighted operation of Th, CS and F, α, β, γ are weighting factors, Th represents system throughput performance, CS represents QoS satisfaction, and F represents scheduling fairness;

0<SP≤1, the larger the SP, the better the comprehensive scheduling performance.

Specifically, α, β, and γ are weights, which reflect the trade-off between system throughput, QoS requirements and scheduling fairness, and can be evaluated based on actual usage requirements. The larger the SP value, the better the comprehensive scheduling performance, and the smaller the SP value, the worse the comprehensive scheduling performance.

The embodiments of the present invention combine scheduling fairness, system throughput and QoS satisfaction, through quantization and weighting operations, and set different weights according to actual application scenarios and consideration requirements, and propose a formula for evaluating the comprehensive scheduling performance of the system. If the overall performance is poor, you can check which sub-performance (scheduling fairness, system throughput, QoS satisfaction) has poor quantitative indicators, troubleshoot algorithm implementation problems, and optimize the scheduling algorithm in a targeted manner.

The scheduling performance evaluation method provided by the embodiment of the present invention performs quantification and weighting operations in combination with scheduling fairness, system throughput, and QoS satisfaction, comprehensively evaluates the scheduling performance, and can set corresponding weights according to different application scenarios. flexible.

On the basis of the above embodiment, S11 specifically includes:

When the scheduling fairness index needs to be considered, the scheduling fairness F is calculated according to the number of collected scheduling resources and the number of scheduling times. The calculation formula is as follows:

Among them, n represents the number of users, X _i is the number of allocated resources for user i, and T _i is the number of times that user i is scheduled;

0<F≤1, the larger F is, the more fair the scheduling between users is.

Specifically, in some application scenarios, the scheduling algorithm should not only consider the fairness of allocated resources, but also consider the fairness of scheduling times. For the condition of continuously available resource blocks, check whether the resource scheduling is uniform; in the condition of fragmented available resources Next, check whether the resource scheduling is evenly quantified and evaluated by the above formula F of scheduling fairness. The larger F is, the more fair the scheduling between users is, and the smaller the F is, the more unfair the scheduling is.

The embodiment of the present invention can evaluate the overall scheduling performance and sub-performance (scheduling fairness) respectively, and if the overall performance is poor, it is possible to check which sub-performances have poor quantitative indicators, troubleshoot algorithm implementation problems, and optimize the scheduling algorithm in a targeted manner.

On the basis of the above embodiment, S11 specifically further includes:

When the system throughput index needs to be considered, the system throughput performance Th is calculated according to the collected cell throughput and theoretical throughput. The calculation formula is as follows:

Among them, Th _th is the actual throughput of all users in the current system, including the edge user throughput and the center user throughput, and Th _g is the theoretical throughput;

0<Th≤1, the larger Th is, the greater the throughput obtained by the system.

Specifically, in a typical application scenario, there are many users and the system load is relatively large. Among them, there are cell center users and edge users. If the scheduling algorithm only considers QoS indicators and fairness, there will be more resource scheduling by edge user scheduling. In the case where the central user obtains less resource scheduling, the system throughput is low and the resource transmission efficiency is low. Therefore, the scheduling algorithm also needs to consider the user channel quality, and tilt more resources to users with better channel quality to improve the system. Throughput performance. The throughput performance Th is quantified using the above formula.

The larger the value of Th is, the greater the throughput obtained by the system, the users with better channel quality obtain more scheduling resources, and the resource transmission efficiency is higher; when the system resources are full or close to full scheduling, it is more meaningful to consider the throughput performance .

The embodiment of the present invention can evaluate the comprehensive scheduling performance and sub-performance (system throughput) respectively. If the comprehensive performance is poor, the quantification index of which sub-performance is poor can be checked to troubleshoot algorithm implementation problems and optimize the scheduling algorithm in a targeted manner.

On the basis of the above embodiment, S11 specifically further includes:

When the QoS satisfaction index needs to be considered, calculate the QoS satisfaction CS based on the collected QoS delay, QoS service packet loss rate, and guaranteed rate GBR. The calculation formula is as follows:

Among them, Bs _total-GR is the number of services with guaranteed rate requirements, Bs _total-TD is the number of services with time delay requirements, Bs _total-PL is the number of services with packet loss rate requirements, and GR _QoS is the average rate over the period under consideration. The number of guaranteed rate services, TD _QoS is the number of services whose average delay is less than the QoS delay requirement in the consideration period, and PL _QoS is the number of services whose packet loss rate is lower than the QoS requirement in the consideration period;

∈, θ and μ are the guaranteed rate weight, delay weight and packet loss rate weight, respectively;

0<CS≤1, the larger the CS, the higher the overall QoS satisfaction.

Specifically, user satisfaction is considered from three important and commonly used aspects, delay, guaranteed rate (GBR) and packet loss rate, and the above formula is used to quantify the overall user satisfaction CS.

The larger the CS, the higher the overall QoS satisfaction. ∈, θ, and μ are the weights, and different weights can be set to weigh different QoS goals, and focus on the more important QoS requirements.

The embodiment of the present invention can evaluate the comprehensive scheduling performance and sub-performance (QoS satisfaction) respectively. If the comprehensive performance is poor, the quantification index of which sub-performance is poor can be checked to troubleshoot algorithm implementation problems and optimize the scheduling algorithm in a targeted manner.

FIG. 3 shows a schematic flowchart of a scheduling performance evaluation method provided by an embodiment of the present invention.

As shown in Figure 3, it specifically includes the following steps:

Determine specific indicators to be considered according to business scenarios and scheduling requirements;

Collect relevant data according to the determined specific consideration indicators: cell throughput, number of scheduling resources, scheduling times, QoS delay, QoS service packet loss rate and guaranteed rate GBR;

If there is a user fairness consideration requirement, calculate the scheduling fairness F according to the number of collected scheduling resources and the number of scheduling times;

If the system throughput is required, calculate the system throughput performance Th according to the collected cell throughput and theoretical throughput;

If there is a requirement for QoS satisfaction consideration, set the QoS index guarantee rate GBR, delay and packet loss rate weights ∈, θ and μ, and calculate the QoS satisfaction CS;

According to the determined specific consideration index requirements and focus, set the weights α, β and γ of scheduling fairness, system throughput and QoS satisfaction, and calculate the comprehensive scheduling performance SP.

The following provides an example to illustrate the application of the scheduling performance evaluation method provided by the embodiment of the present invention in various scenarios.

Scenario 1. For application scenarios without QoS requirements, only scheduling fairness and throughput are considered. For example, if all services are FTP (File Transfer Protocol) services, the QoS satisfaction weight β=0, and the throughput weight α, the scheduling fairness weight γ is set according to the actual situation and demand.

SP=α*Th+γ*F

Among them, α+γ=1, 0<α<1, 0<γ<1.

Scenario 2. For application scenarios that only require QoS, such as conversational services and streaming media services, QoS indicators are mainly considered. Due to the different types of services, scheduling fairness is not considered, the overall traffic volume is small, and cell throughput is not considered. The throughput weight α=0, the scheduling fairness weight γ=0, and the QoS satisfaction weight β=1. At this time, the main focus is on QoS satisfaction, and according to the QoS target requirements, set the guaranteed rate (GBR), time The weights of delay and packet loss rate ∈, θ, μ.

SP=CS

Scenario 3. For application scenarios with different service types, including conversational services, streaming media, interactive, and background services, QoS satisfaction and system throughput need to be considered. Due to different service types, scheduling fairness is not considered. , the corresponding weight γ=0, the system throughput and QoS satisfaction weights α and β are set according to the actual situation, and the weights ε, θ and μ of the guaranteed rate, delay and packet loss rate are set according to the QoS target requirements.

SP=α*Th+β*CS

Among them, α+β=1, 0<α<1, 0<β<1.

FIG. 4 shows a schematic structural diagram of a scheduling performance evaluation apparatus provided by an embodiment of the present invention.

As shown in FIG. 4 , the scheduling performance evaluation device provided by the embodiment of the present invention includes: a determining unit, used for determining the indicators to be considered and the weights of each indicator according to business scenarios and scheduling requirements; a collection unit, used for indicators to be considered according to needs. Collect relevant data, the relevant data includes cell throughput, number of scheduling resources, scheduling times, QoS delay, QoS service packet loss rate and guaranteed rate GBR; as shown in Figure 4, the device further includes: a first evaluation unit 11 and the second evaluation unit 12, wherein:

The first evaluation unit 11 is configured to quantify and evaluate each index according to the collected data, and the index includes scheduling fairness, system throughput and/or QoS satisfaction;

Specifically, according to the consideration requirements, through corresponding data collection, the corresponding quantitative indicators are calculated: scheduling fairness, throughput, and QoS satisfaction, which respectively indicate the quality of performance such as fairness, throughput, and QoS satisfaction.

The second evaluation unit 12 is used to perform weighted operation on the quantized indicators to evaluate the comprehensive scheduling performance of the system;

The calculation formula of the comprehensive scheduling performance of the system is as follows:

SP=α*Th+β*CS+γ*F

Among them, α+β+γ=1, 0≤α≤1, 0≤β≤1, 0≤γ≤1;

SP is the weighted operation of Th, CS and F, α, β, γ are weighting factors, Th represents system throughput performance, CS represents QoS satisfaction, and F represents scheduling fairness;

0<SP≤1, the larger the SP, the better the comprehensive scheduling performance.

Specifically, α, β, and γ are weights, which reflect the trade-off between system throughput, QoS requirements and scheduling fairness, and can be evaluated based on actual usage requirements. The larger the SP value, the better the comprehensive scheduling performance, and the smaller the SP value, the worse the comprehensive scheduling performance.

The embodiments of the present invention combine scheduling fairness, system throughput and QoS satisfaction, through quantization and weighting operations, and set different weights according to actual application scenarios and consideration requirements, and propose a formula for evaluating the comprehensive scheduling performance of the system. If the overall performance is poor, you can check which sub-performance (scheduling fairness, system throughput, QoS satisfaction) has poor quantitative indicators, troubleshoot algorithm implementation problems, and optimize the scheduling algorithm in a targeted manner.

The scheduling performance evaluation device provided by the embodiment of the present invention performs quantification and weighting operations in combination with scheduling fairness, system throughput, and QoS satisfaction, comprehensively evaluates scheduling performance, and can set corresponding weights according to different application scenarios, and has a wide range of application scenarios. flexible.

On the basis of the above embodiment, the first evaluation unit 11 includes:

The first evaluation module is used to calculate the scheduling fairness F according to the number of collected scheduling resources and the number of times of scheduling when the scheduling fairness index needs to be considered. The calculation formula is as follows:

Among them, n represents the number of users, X _i is the number of allocated resources for user i, and T _i is the number of times that user i is scheduled;

0<F≤1, the larger F is, the more fair the scheduling between users is.

Specifically, in some application scenarios, the scheduling algorithm should not only consider the fairness of allocated resources, but also consider the fairness of scheduling times. For the condition of continuously available resource blocks, check whether the resource scheduling is uniform; in the condition of fragmented available resources Next, check whether the resource scheduling is evenly quantified and evaluated by the above formula F of scheduling fairness. The larger F is, the more fair the scheduling between users is, and the smaller the F is, the more unfair the scheduling is.

The embodiment of the present invention can evaluate the overall scheduling performance and sub-performance (scheduling fairness) respectively, and if the overall performance is poor, it is possible to check which sub-performances have poor quantitative indicators, troubleshoot algorithm implementation problems, and optimize the scheduling algorithm in a targeted manner.

On the basis of the above embodiment, the first evaluation unit 11 further includes:

The second evaluation module is used to calculate the system throughput performance Th according to the collected cell throughput and theoretical throughput when the system throughput index needs to be considered. The calculation formula is as follows:

Among them, Th _th is the actual throughput of all users in the current system, including the edge user throughput and the center user throughput, and Th _g is the theoretical throughput;

0<Th≤1, the larger Th is, the greater the throughput obtained by the system.

Specifically, in a typical application scenario, there are many users and the system load is relatively large. Among them, there are cell center users and edge users. If the scheduling algorithm only considers QoS indicators and fairness, there will be more resource scheduling by edge user scheduling. In the case where the central user obtains less resource scheduling, the system throughput is low and the resource transmission efficiency is low. Therefore, the scheduling algorithm also needs to consider the user channel quality, and tilt more resources to users with better channel quality to improve the system. Throughput performance. The throughput performance Th is quantified using the above formula.

The larger the value of Th is, the greater the throughput obtained by the system, the users with better channel quality obtain more scheduling resources, and the resource transmission efficiency is higher; when the system resources are full or close to full scheduling, it is more meaningful to consider the throughput performance .

The embodiment of the present invention can evaluate the comprehensive scheduling performance and sub-performance (system throughput) respectively. If the comprehensive performance is poor, the quantification index of which sub-performance is poor can be checked to troubleshoot algorithm implementation problems and optimize the scheduling algorithm in a targeted manner.

On the basis of the above embodiment, the first evaluation unit 11 further includes:

The third evaluation module, when the QoS satisfaction index needs to be considered, calculates the QoS satisfaction CS according to the collected QoS delay, QoS service packet loss rate and guaranteed rate GBR. The calculation formula is as follows:

Among them, Bs _total-GR is the number of services with guaranteed rate requirements, Bs _total-TD is the number of services with time delay requirements, Bs _total-PL is the number of services with packet loss rate requirements, and GR _QoS is the average rate over the period under consideration. The number of guaranteed rate services, TD _QoS is the number of services whose average delay is less than the QoS delay requirement in the consideration period, and PL _QoS is the number of services whose packet loss rate is lower than the QoS requirement in the consideration period;

∈, θ and μ are the guaranteed rate weight, delay weight and packet loss rate weight, respectively;

0<CS≤1, the larger the CS, the higher the overall QoS satisfaction.

Specifically, user satisfaction is considered from three important and commonly used aspects, delay, guaranteed rate (GBR) and packet loss rate, and the above formula is used to quantify the overall user satisfaction CS.

The larger the CS, the higher the overall QoS satisfaction. ∈, θ, and μ are the weights, and different weights can be set to weigh different QoS goals, and focus on the more important QoS requirements.

The embodiment of the present invention can evaluate the comprehensive scheduling performance and sub-performance (QoS satisfaction) respectively. If the comprehensive performance is poor, the quantification index of which sub-performance is poor can be checked to troubleshoot algorithm implementation problems and optimize the scheduling algorithm in a targeted manner.

The device embodiments described above are only illustrative, wherein the units described as separate components may or may not be physically separated, and the components shown as units may or may not be physical units, that is, they may be located in One place, or it can be distributed over multiple network elements. Some or all of the modules may be selected according to actual needs to achieve the purpose of the solution in this embodiment. Those of ordinary skill in the art can understand and implement it without creative effort.

From the description of the above embodiments, those skilled in the art can clearly understand that each embodiment can be implemented by means of software plus a necessary general hardware platform, and certainly can also be implemented by hardware. Based on this understanding, the above-mentioned technical solutions can be embodied in the form of software products in essence or the parts that make contributions to the prior art, and the computer software products can be stored in computer-readable storage media, such as ROM/RAM, magnetic A disc, an optical disc, etc., includes several instructions for causing a computer device (which may be a personal computer, a server, or a network device, etc.) to perform the methods described in various embodiments or some parts of the embodiments.

Finally, it should be noted that: the above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention, but not to limit them; although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those of ordinary skill in the art should understand: it can still be Modifications are made to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments, or some technical features thereof are equivalently replaced; and these modifications or replacements do not make the essence of the corresponding technical solutions depart from the spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention.

An example is as follows:

FIG. 5 illustrates a schematic diagram of the physical structure of a server. As shown in FIG. 5 , the server may include: a processor (processor) 21, a communication interface (Communications Interface) 22, a memory (memory) 23 and a communication bus 24, wherein, The processor 21 , the communication interface 22 , and the memory 23 communicate with each other through the communication bus 24 . The processor 21 may invoke logic instructions in the memory 23 to perform the following methods:

Quantify and evaluate various indicators according to the collected data, the indicators include scheduling fairness, system throughput and/or QoS satisfaction;

Perform weighted operations on the quantized indicators to evaluate the overall scheduling performance of the system;

The calculation formula of the comprehensive scheduling performance of the system is as follows:

SP=α*Th+β*CS+γ*F

Among them, α+β+γ=1, 0≤α≤1, 0≤β≤1, 0≤γ≤1;

SP is the weighted operation of Th, CS and F, α, β, γ are weighting factors, Th represents system throughput performance, CS represents QoS satisfaction, and F represents scheduling fairness;

0<SP≤1, the larger the SP, the better the comprehensive scheduling performance.

In addition, the above-mentioned logic instructions in the memory 23 can be implemented in the form of software functional units and can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium when sold or used as an independent product. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of the present invention can be embodied in the form of a software product in essence, or the part that contributes to the prior art or the part of the technical solution. The computer software product is stored in a storage medium, including Several instructions are used to cause a computer device (which may be a personal computer, a server, or a network device, etc.) to execute all or part of the steps of the methods described in the various embodiments of the present invention. The aforementioned storage medium includes: U disk, mobile hard disk, Read-Only Memory (ROM, Read-Only Memory), Random Access Memory (RAM, Random Access Memory), magnetic disk or optical disk and other media that can store program codes .

Claims (10)

1. A scheduling performance evaluation method, comprising: determining indicators to be considered and the weight of each indicator according to business scenarios and scheduling requirements; collecting relevant data according to the indicators to be considered, the relevant data including cell throughput, number of scheduling resources, Scheduling times, QoS delay, QoS service packet loss rate and guaranteed rate GBR; it is characterized in that the method further includes: Quantify and evaluate various indicators according to the collected data, the indicators include scheduling fairness, system throughput and/or QoS satisfaction; Perform weighted operations on the quantized indicators to evaluate the overall scheduling performance of the system; The calculation formula of the comprehensive scheduling performance of the system is as follows: SP=α*Th+β*CS+γ*F Among them, α+β+γ=1, 0≤α≤1, 0≤β≤1, 0≤γ≤1; SP is the weighted operation of Th, CS and F, α, β, γ are weighting factors, Th represents system throughput performance, CS represents QoS satisfaction, and F represents scheduling fairness; 0<SP≤1, the larger the SP, the better the overall scheduling performance. 2. The scheduling performance evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein the quantifying and evaluating each index according to the collected data comprises: When the scheduling fairness index needs to be considered, the scheduling fairness F is calculated according to the number of collected scheduling resources and the number of scheduling times. The calculation formula is as follows:

Among them, n represents the number of users, X _i is the number of allocated resources for user i, and T _i is the number of times that user i is scheduled; 0<F≤1, the larger F is, the more fair the scheduling between users is. 3. The scheduling performance evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein the quantifying and evaluating each index according to the collected data further comprises: When the system throughput index needs to be considered, the system throughput performance Th is calculated according to the collected cell throughput and theoretical throughput. The calculation formula is as follows:

Among them, Th _th is the actual throughput of all users in the current system, including the edge user throughput and the center user throughput, and Th _g is the theoretical throughput; 0<Th≤1, the larger Th is, the greater the throughput of the system is obtained. 4. The scheduling performance evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein the quantifying and evaluating each index according to the collected data further comprises: When the QoS satisfaction index needs to be considered, calculate the QoS satisfaction CS based on the collected QoS delay, QoS service packet loss rate, and guaranteed rate GBR. The calculation formula is as follows:

Among them, Bs _total-GR is the number of services with guaranteed rate requirements, Bs _total-TD is the number of services with time delay requirements, Bs _total-PL is the number of services with packet loss rate requirements, and GR _Qos is the average rate over the period under consideration. The number of guaranteed rate services, TD _Qos is the number of services whose average delay is less than the QoS delay requirement in the consideration period, and PL _Qos is the number of services whose packet loss rate is lower than the QoS requirement in the consideration period; ∈, θ and μ are the guaranteed rate weight, delay weight and packet loss rate weight, respectively; 0<CS≤1, the larger the CS, the higher the overall QoS satisfaction. 5. A scheduling performance evaluation device, comprising: a determining unit for determining indicators to be considered and the weight of each indicator according to business scenarios and scheduling requirements; a collection unit for collecting relevant data according to the indicators to be considered, the relevant The data includes cell throughput, number of scheduling resources, scheduling times, QoS delay, QoS service packet loss rate and guaranteed rate GBR; it is characterized in that the device further includes: a first evaluation unit, configured to quantify and evaluate each index according to the collected data, where the index includes scheduling fairness, system throughput and/or QoS satisfaction; The second evaluation unit is used to perform a weighted operation on the quantized indicators to evaluate the comprehensive scheduling performance of the system; The calculation formula of the comprehensive scheduling performance of the system is as follows: SP=α*Th+β*CS+γ*F Among them, α+β+γ=1, 0≤α≤1, 0≤β≤1, 0≤γ≤1; SP is the weighted operation of Th, CS and F, α, β, γ are weighting factors, Th represents system throughput performance, CS represents QoS satisfaction, and F represents scheduling fairness; 0<SP≤1, the larger the SP, the better the overall scheduling performance. 6. The scheduling performance evaluation device according to claim 5, wherein the first evaluation unit comprises: The first evaluation module is used to calculate the scheduling fairness F according to the number of collected scheduling resources and the number of times of scheduling when the scheduling fairness index needs to be considered. The calculation formula is as follows:

Among them, n represents the number of users, X _i is the number of allocated resources for user i, and T _i is the number of times that user i is scheduled; 0<F≤1, the larger F is, the more fair the scheduling between users is. 7. The scheduling performance evaluation device according to claim 5, wherein the first evaluation unit further comprises: The second evaluation module is used to calculate the system throughput performance Th according to the collected cell throughput and theoretical throughput when the system throughput index needs to be considered. The calculation formula is as follows:

Among them, Th _th is the actual throughput of all users in the current system, including the edge user throughput and the center user throughput, and Th _g is the theoretical throughput; 0<Th≤1, the larger Th is, the greater the throughput obtained by the system. 8. The device according to claim 5, wherein the first evaluation unit further comprises: The third evaluation module, when the QoS satisfaction index needs to be considered, calculates the QoS satisfaction CS according to the collected QoS delay, QoS service packet loss rate and guaranteed rate GBR. The calculation formula is as follows:

Among them, Bs _total-GR is the number of services with guaranteed rate requirements, Bs _total-TD is the number of services with time delay requirements, Bs _total-PL is the number of services with packet loss rate requirements, and GR _Qos is the average rate over the period under consideration. The number of guaranteed rate services, TD _Qos is the number of services whose average delay is less than the QoS delay requirement in the consideration period, and PL _Qos is the number of services whose packet loss rate is lower than the QoS requirement in the consideration period; ∈, θ and μ are the guaranteed rate weight, delay weight and packet loss rate weight, respectively; 0<CS≤1, the larger the CS, the higher the overall QoS satisfaction. 9. An electronic device comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored on the memory and running on the processor, wherein the processor implements any one of claims 1 to 4 when the processor executes the program The steps of the scheduling performance evaluation method described in item . 10. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, characterized in that, when the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the scheduling performance evaluation method according to any one of claims 1 to 4 are implemented .

Images