The structure connectivity of Data Center Networks
E-mails: baln19@lzu.edu.cn, zhanghp@lzu.edu.cn)
Abstract
Last decade, numerous giant data center networks are built to provide increasingly fashionable web applications. For two integers and , the -dimensional DCell network with -port switches and -dimensional BCDC network have been proposed. Connectivity is a basic parameter to measure fault-tolerance of networks. As generalizations of connectivity, structure (substructure) connectivity was recently proposed. Let and be two connected graphs. Let be a set whose elements are subgraphs of , and every member of is isomorphic to (resp. a connected subgraph of ). Then -structure connectivity (resp. -substructure connectivity ) of is the size of a smallest set of such that the rest of is disconnected or the singleton when removing . Then it is meaningful to calculate the structure connectivity of data center networks on some common structures, such as star , path , cycle , complete graph and so on. In this paper, we obtain that for and for by analyzing the structural properties of . We also compute and for and by using -extra connectivity of .
Keywords: Fault-tolerance; Structure connectivity; DCell; BCDC.
1 Introduction
Networks are often modeled by connected graphs. A node replaces with a vertex and a link replaces with an edge. Let be a graph. We set as vertex set of and as edge set of . Connectivity is a basic parameter in measuring fault tolerance of networks. In order to more accurately measure fault-tolerance of large-scale parallel processing systems, -conditional connectivity for some property proposed by Harary [9] referred to the minimum cardinality of a vertex subset of such that is disconnect and every component has property . Thus, -extra connectivity is introduced by Fàbrega and Fiol [5], and the definition emphasizes that the every component left behind has at least vertices; -restricted connectivity is came up with by Esfahanian and Hakimi [3], and requires that any one vertex of every component left behind has at least neighborts. In the Network-on-Chip technology, if there is a fault node on the chip, then we assume that the whole chip is fault. Because of the facts, structure (substructure) connectivity is defined by Lin et al. [13]. Let be a set of subgraphs of . If disconnects or is a trivial graph, then is called a subgraph cut of . For a connected subgraph and a subgraph cut of , if ’s every member is isomorphic to (resp. a connected subgraph of ), then is called an -structure cut (resp. -substructure cut). The size of the smallest -structure cuts (resp. -substructure cuts) of is -structure connectivity of , (resp. -substructure connectivity of , ). Thus, . Especially, -structure connectivity is equal to vertex connectivity. For the past few years, there are many studies on structure connectivity for some well-known networks, such as -networks [12], alternating group graphs [15], star graph [14], wheel network [6] and so on.
Data center network, DCN, is a networking infrastructure inside a data center, which connects many servers by links and switches [7]. Due to the the advances of science and technology, DCN runs thousands of servers. For instance, Google has over 450,000 servers operating in 30 data centers by 2006 [1, 10], and Microsoft and Yahoo! have hundreds of millions of servers running at the same time in their data centers [2, 18]. Then how to efficiently connect numerous servers become a fundamental challenge in DCN. Therefore, DCell and BCDC were proposed by Guo et al. [7] and Wang et al. [19], respectively. DCell defines by a recursive structure. A server connects to distinct levels of DCells by multiple links (for details see Definition 1). According to its structure, with the increase of node degree, DCell shows a doubly exponential growth. Then, without the use of costly core-switches or core-routers, a DCell with a degree less than 4 can operate over thousands of servers [7]. An -dimensional BCDC, , consists of an independent set and two -dimensional BCDC’s (for details see Definition 4). Then the quantity of servers in BCDC add up fast as the dimension of BCDC grows. Such as, with the use of 16-port switches, operates 524 288 servers at once [19]. It is easy to find that DCell and BCDC provide two ways to connect plentiful servers efficiently. For these two networks, the best application scenarios are large data centers, which contain end-user applications (e.g. Web search and IM) and distributed system operations (e.g. MapReduce and GFS) [7]. Because DCell and BCDC based on complete graphs and crossed cubes, respectively, they still have lots of good properties, such as high-capacity, minor diameter and high fault-tolerance. There are a few primary characters of graphs and , such as connectivity, diameter, symmetry, broadcasting, have been studied recently [7, 19]. As extensions of connectivity, -restricted connectivity [20, 17] and -extra connectivity [16, 17] have been studied, yet. Then, we compute the structure connectivities of and on some common structures, star, complete graph, path and cycle in this paper.
The paper has the following sections. Section 2 defines a few notations. Sections 3 presents the star-structure (substructure) connectivity and complete graph-structure connectivitives of DCell. Sections 4 shows the star-structure (substructure) connectivity, path-structure (substructure) connectivity and cycle-structure (substructure) connectivity of BCDC. Section 5 summarizes the content of this paper and indicates some unsolved questions.
2 Notations
In this paper, we only consider finite and simple graphs. For a graph that satisfies the conditions and , we call a subgraph of . For a vertex subset of , is a graph obtained by deleting the vertex set and all edges incident to them from . If is a subgraph of , then we set . Let be a set whose members are subgraphs of . Then , where is the union of the vertex set of members of . For a vertex subset of , we set as the induced subgraph by of , where and For any one vertex of , . For a vertex subset of , . Let be a path. We set and . If in , , then we call it cycle . Let be a star . Then we set and , , are center and leaves, respectively.
3 The structure connectivity of DCell
Given an integer , we set and . Define and for . An -dimensional DCell with -port switches is denoted by for and . Let be the number of servers in , where and for . Servers of can be labeled by .
Definition 1.
[7] The -dimensional DCell with -port switches is defined recursively as follows.
-
(1)
is a complete graph consisting of servers.
-
(2)
For , is obtained from disjoint copies by the following steps.
-
(i)
Let be a copy of by prefixing label of each server with for
-
(ii)
Server in is adjacent to server in if and only if and for any and .
-
(i)
If has a neighbor for and , then is called the outside neighbor of . Figure 1(a) shows 1-dimensional DCell with 4-port switches. Since switches are transparent in networks, the graph structure of is shown in Figure 1(b).


Lemma 3.1.
[8] For and , the following statements hold:
-
(i)
is -regular and ,
-
(ii)
for , consists of copies of , denoted by , for each . There is only one edge between and for any and , which implies that the outside neighbors of vertices in belong to different copies of for and .
For convenience, let
(3.1) |
Lemma 3.2.
[7] For and , and
Lemma 3.3.
for
Proof.
Let’s explain this by mathematical induction on . For , . Assume for Then has a -substructure cut with . We have
Since , , a contradiction. Then it is true for .
Suppose for Now, we consider . Let be a set of connected subgraphs of for . We need to show that is connected. Let , and by Eq. (3.1). We know that each star is in at most two ’s by Definition 1. Then there exist at most ’s such that Let be a set such that for . Then . By Lemma 3.2, for and ,
which implies that there exists satisfied for . Then and is connected. Let be a subset of satisfied that there exist star-centers in for . Then there only leaves of stars in for .
If there exist and such that both and are disconnected for , and , then and by induction hypothesis. Since , and are impossible by Definition 1. Thus there is at most one satisfied that is disconnected for .
Case 1. Each is connected for .
For each , consists of the outside neighbors of partical star-centers which are in . Then has an outside neighbor of a vertex which is in for . Since is connected, is connected. Let be the number of star-centers in for . For , we find . Then each vertex of has an outside neighbor in . Since is connected, is connected (see Figure 2(a)). For , by Lemma 3.2, we have for and ,
and for ,
which implies that has a vertex that is connected to for each (see Figure 2(b)). Thus is connected.
Case 2. There is exactly one such that is disconnected for .
Since is connected for and , is connected by the similar argument as Case 1. By induction hypothesis, . If , then each has exactly one star-center and exactly one of leaves of that star in for , and each has exactly one leaf of star and its center in for (see Figure 2(c)). By Lemma 3.1, each vertex of has an outside neighbor in . Thus is connected. If , then and . Otherwise, , a contradiction. For , we have that each has exactly one star-center and one leaf of the star is in (see Figure 2(d)). Thus has all outside neighbors of vertices which from different s, . By Lemma 3.1, each vertex of has an outside neighbor in . Thus is connected. ∎




Lemma 3.4.
for
Proof.
Given two vertices and in . Then . Since is a complete graph by Definition 1, we need ’s to cover all vertices of . Then we set
Next, we will construct several stars ’s to cover the vertex subset . For , let be a star with center () and its leaves are the neighbors of except (see Figure 3(a)).
Let . Since and , has two components. Then is a singleton and belongs to the other component. Thus .
∎
Lemmas 3.3 and 3.4 imply that for . Then following result holds.
Theorem 3.5.
for .
Lemma 3.6.
for .
Proof.
Induction on . For , . Assume for . Then there exists a -structure cut of , We have
Since , , a contradiction. Then for .
Assume for . Now, we consider . Let be a set such that for . We need to show that is connected. Let , and by Eq. (3.1). We know that a complete graph for each is in exactly one by Definition 1. Let be the number of ’s in . If for some , then . Thus is connected. By Definition 1, each vertex of has an outside neighbor in . Then is connected.
If for some , then is connected by induction hypothesis. Since , there are at most ’s such that . Let be a set such that for . Then . By Lemma 3.2,
which implies that there exist ’s such that for . Then and is connected. By Lemma 3.2, we find, for , and ,
which implies that has a vertex that is connected to for each . Since is connected for , is connected. ∎
Lemma 3.7.
for .
Proof.
Given two vertices and in . Then . Let be a complete graph . Since is a complete graph by Definition 1, we need ’s to cover all vertices of . Then we set
Next, we will construct several complete graphs ’s to cover the vertex subset . For each , let be a with vertices ( and ) for . Precisely, , , analogously, (see Figure 3(b)).
Let . Since and , has two components. Then is a singleton and belongs to the other component. Thus . ∎


On the basis of 3.6 and 3.7, the following result holds.
Theorem 3.8.
for .
4 The structure connectivity of BCDC
Since -dimensional BCDC consists of two -dimensional crossed cubes and an independent set, we introduce -dimensional crossed cube first.
Definition 2.
[4] Two binary strings and are called pair related (denoted by ) if and only if .
Definition 3.
[4] We set as with vertices and . consists of and . Two vertices and are joined by an edge in if and only if
-
(i)
if is even, and
-
(ii)
, for .
For any two vertices and , is adjacent to if and only if there is satisfying the following conditions: (1) , (2) , (3) if is odd, (4) , for all . Then we set as -dimensional neighbor of , denoted by .
BCDC’s switches are vertices of and servers are edges of . Each switch is an -bit binary string and each server is a pair . Then we get the original graph of the -dimensional BCDC network, . Consider that switches are transparent, the graph structure of BCDC network as follows:
Definition 4.
[19] We set as a -cycle with vertices and For , (resp. ) is obtained by prefixing each vertex of with (resp. ). consists of , and a vertex subset and . For three vertices and ,
-
(i)
if and only if or ;
-
(ii)
if and only if or .



Lemma 4.1.
[11] is -regular and triangle-free.
Lemma 4.2.
[17] For , we have the statements below:
-
(i)
is -regular and has vertices, edges.
-
(ii)
.
-
(iii)
is the line graph of .
Lemma 4.3.
[17] For and ,
Lemma 4.4.
is two independent complete graphs .
Proof.
Given a vertex in , where is an edge of . Since is -regular, we set and . Then . According to the Definition 4, and . Suppose is adjacent to in . Then , which implies that and (or ) induce a triangle in , a contradiction by Lemma 4.1. Thus is two independent complete graphs ∎

Theorem 4.5.
Proof.
Assume () for odd (even) . Then has a -substructure cut . Let be a smallest component of . For odd , by Lemma 4.2, a contradiction. Thus for odd . For even , by Lemma 4.3. Then , say . We have . By Lemma 4.4, subgraphs of can not cover all vertices of , a contradiction. Thus for even .
We give a -structure cut of for . Let be a vertex of with and . Then . For , we set and . For odd , we set
For even , we set
Let . We find and , which implies that has two components. Then is a singleton and belongs to the other component. Thus for odd and for even . ∎
Lemma 4.6.
For and , let be remainder of divided by . Then
Proof.
Suppose to the contrary that for and , and for otherwise. Then has a -substructure cut . Let be a smallest component of . Then by Lemma 4.2. For , if , then , a contradiction. If , then , a contradiction. Similarly, for , , a contradiction. Then we consider the cases , or and . We find for , and for and . By Lemma 4.3, . Then , say . Thus , which implies that has a star for , contradicting Lemma 4.4. For and , . If all star-centers are in , then stars can not cover all vertices of by Lemma 4.4. Thus there exists a star whose center is not in . We know that has at most two neighbors in since and ( and ) have no common neighbor in . Then for . It is a contradiction. ∎
Lemma 4.7.
For and , let be remainder of divided by . Then
Proof.
Let be a vertex of with and . Then .
For , let () be a star with center () and the leaves are neighbors of (). Precisely,
where and . Let . Since and , has two components. Then is a singleton and belongs to the other component.
For and , we set () as a star with center () and the leaves are () for each . The more detailed expressions are
If , then we set where . If , then we set
where and . Let for , for and for . We find and , which implies that has two components and is a singleton and belongs to other component. ∎
Theorem 4.8.
For and , let be remainder of divided by . Then
Lemma 4.9.
For and , we have
Proof.
Suppose for and , and for otherwise. Then there exists a -substructure cut . Let be a smallest component of . Then by Lemma 4.2. For and , , a contradiction. Similarly, for , , a contradiction.
We have , say , for or and since by Lemma 4.3. Then , which implies that has a hamiltonian path and vertex-disjoint ’s for and . It is impossible by Lemma 4.4. ∎
Lemma 4.10.
For and , we have
Proof.
Let be a vertex of with and . Then . For convenience, we set as a path with vertices.
For , we set . For , let and . Then we set , where () along () with end-vertices () and the -th vertex of ().
For and , we set , where along with end-vertices and , along with end-vertices and , by the analogous, along with end-vertices and . Similarly, we set along with end-vertices and , by the analogous, along with end-vertices and . For and , let and , where along with end-vertices and , along with end-vertices and , by the analogous, along with end-vertices are the -th and -th vertices of .
We find and , which implies that has two components. Then is a singleton and belongs to other component. ∎
Theorem 4.11.
For and , we have
We have . By the similar argument as Lemma 4.9, we obtain the following result.
Theorem 4.12.
For and , we have
Lemma 4.13.
For and , let be remainder of divided by . Then
Proof.
Suppose to the contrary that for and , or , for and for otherwise. Then there exists a -structure cut . Let be a smallest component. We have by Lemma 4.2. For and , or , , a contradiction. We have a Similar contradiction for and since .
For , it is easy to find . For and , we have
Then for by Lemma 4.3. Thus , say , which implies that for , or and . We find for , that is, a covers all vertices of , contradicting Lemma 4.4. We find for , which implies that we need two ’s to cover all vertices of . We know the longest cycle is in by Lemma 4.4. Then a cover vertices of and these vertices are in a . Let be a vertex of but . Then is adjacent to both and (or and ) for . Thus (or ) and (or ). It is a contradiction since and . For and , we have and these vertices induce two disjoint ’s. Then we know a can not cover two disjoint ’s by Lemma 4.4, a contradiction. ∎
Lemma 4.14.
For and , let be remainder of divided by . Then
Proof.
Let be a vertex of with and . Then . Let be a path with vertices.
For , we set
For , we set and
where and ,
where and .
For , we set and
where .
For and , we set
If , then we set . If , then we set and
where . If , then we set and
where ,
where . If , then we set and
We find and , which implies that has two components. Then is a singleton and belongs to the other component. ∎
Theorem 4.15.
For and , let be remainder of divided by . Then
5 Conclusion
In this paper, we obtained structure connectivities of two famous data center networks DCell and BCDC on some common structures. For DCell network , and , we got that for and for by analyzing the structural properties of . For BCDC network , , we used the existing results of -extra connectivity to obtain and for (see Theorems 4.5 and 4.8) and and for (see Theorem 4.11); and for (see Theorem 4.15). It is easy to find that () and () have no relevant conclusions. Except for , , and , there are still other structure connectivities of and have not been studied. So we will keep working on structure connectivity of data center networks.
Acknowledgement
The work is supported by NSFC (Grant No. 11871256).
References
- [1] S. Arnold, Google Version 2.0: The Calculating Predator, Infonortics Ltd. 2007.
- [2] A. Carter, Do It Green: Media Interview with Michael Manos, 2007. http://edge.technet.com/Media/Doing-IT-Green/.
- [3] A. Esfahanian, S. Hakimi, On computing a conditional edge-connectivity of a graph, Inf. Process. Lett. 27 (1988) 195-199.
- [4] K. Efe, The crossed cube architecture for parallel computation, IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, 3(5) (1992) 513-524.
- [5] J. Fàbrega, M.A. Fiod, On the extraconnectivity of graphs, Discrete Math. 155 (1-3) (1996) 49-57.
- [6] W. Feng, S.Y. Wang, Structure connectivity and substructure connectivity of wheel networks, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 850 (2021) 20-29.
- [7] C.X. Guo, H.T. Wu, K. Tan, L. Shi, Y.G. Zhang, S.W. Lu, DCell: A Scalable and Fault-Tolerant Network Structure for Data Centers, in Proc. SIGCOMM’08 (Seattle, WA, 2008), Vol. 38, pp. 75-86.
- [8] C. Hao, W.H. Yang, The Generalization Connectivity of Data Center Networks, Parallel Process. Lett. 29 (2) (2019), No. 1950007, 9 pages.
- [9] F. Harary, Conditional connectivity, Networks 13 (3) (1983) 347-357.
- [10] T. Hoff, Google Architecture, 2007. http://highscalability.com/google-architecture.
- [11] P.D. Kulasinghe, Connectivity of the crossed cube, Inf. Process. Lett. 61 (1997) 221-226.
- [12] C.K. Lin, E. Cheng, L. Lipták, Structure and Substructure Connectivity of Hypercube-Like Networks, Parallel Process. Lett. 30 (3) (2020), No. 2040007, 23 pages.
- [13] C.K. Lin, L.L. Zhang, J.X. Fan, D.J. Wang, Structure connectivity and substructure connectivity of hypercubes, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 634 (2016) 97-107.
- [14] C.F. Li, S.W. Lin, S.J. Li, Structure connectivity and substructure connectivity of star graphs, Discrete Appl. Math. 284 (2020) 472-480.
- [15] X.W. Li, S.M. Zhou, X.Y. Ren, X. Guo, Structure and substructure connectivity of alternating group graphs, Appl. Math. Comput. 391 (2021), No. 125639, 16 pages.
- [16] X.Y. Li, J.X. Fan, C.K. Lin, B.L. Chen, X.H. Jia, The extra connectivity, extra conditional diagnosability and -diagnosability of the data center network DCell, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 766 (2019) 16-29.
- [17] M.J. Lv, B.L. Chen, J.X. Fan, X. Wang, J.Y. Zhou, J. Yu, The Conditional Reliability Evaluation of Data Center Network BCDC, Comput. J. (2020) https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxaa078.
- [18] L. Rabbe, Powering the Yahoo! network, 2006. http://yodel.yahoo.com/2006/11/27/powering-the-yahoo-network/.
- [19] X. Wang, J.X. Fan, C.K. Lin, J.Y. Zhou, Z. Liu, BCDC: A high-performance, server-centric data center network, J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 33(2) (2018) 400-416.
- [20] X. Wang, J.X. Fan, J.Y. Zhou, C.K. Lin, The restricted -connectivity of the data center network DCell, Discrete Appl. Math. 203 (2016) 144-157.