We initiate a formal study of fairness for the k-server problem, where the objective is not only to minimize the total movement cost, but also to distribute the cost equitably among servers. We first define a general notion of (α,β)-fairness, where, for parameters α ≥ 1 and β ≥ 0, no server incurs more than an α/k-fraction of the total cost plus an additive term β. We then show that fairness can be achieved without a loss in competitiveness in both the offline and online settings. In the offline setting, we give a deterministic algorithm that, for any ε > 0, transforms any optimal solution into an (α,β)-fair solution for α = 1 + ε and β = O(diam ⋅ log k / ε), while increasing the cost of the solution by just an additive O(diam ⋅ k log k / ε) term. Here diam is the diameter of the underlying metric space. We give a similar result in the online setting, showing that any competitive algorithm can be transformed into a randomized online algorithm that is fair with high probability against an oblivious adversary and still competitive up to a small loss. The above results leave open a significant question: can fairness be achieved in the online setting, either with a deterministic algorithm or a randomized algorithm, against a fully adaptive adversary? We make progress towards answering this question, showing that the classic deterministic Double Coverage Algorithm (DCA) is fair on line metrics and on tree metrics when k = 2. However, we also show a negative result: DCA fails to be fair for any non-vacuous parameters on general tree metrics. We further show that on uniform metrics (i.e., the paging problem), the deterministic First-In First-Out (FIFO) algorithm is fair. We show that any "marking algorithm", including the Least Recently Used (LRU) algorithm, also satisfies a weaker, but still meaningful notion of fairness.
Daneshvaramoli et al. (Thu,) studied this question.