Analysis of Load Balancing in Large Heterogeneous Processor Sharing Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyze randomized dynamic load balancing schemes for multi-server processor sharing systems when the number of servers in the system is large and the servers have heterogeneous service rates. In particular, we focus on the classical power-of-two load balancing scheme and a variant of it in which a newly arrived job is assigned to the server having the least instantaneous Lagrange shadow cost among two randomly chosen servers. The instantaneous Lagrange shadow cost at a server is given by the ratio of the number of unfinished jobs at the server to the capacity of the server. Two different approaches of analysis are presented for each scheme. For exponential job length distribution, the analysis is done using the mean field approach and for more general job length distributions the analysis is carried out assuming an asymptotic independence property. Analytical expressions to compute mean sojourn time of jobs are found for both schemes. Asymptotic insensitivity of the schemes to the type of job length distribution is established. Numerical results are presented to validate the theoretical results and to show that, unlike the homogeneous scenario, the power-of-two type schemes considered in this paper may not always result in better behaviour in terms of the mean sojourn time of jobs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".