MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985747745 · doi:10.1142/s0129626405002349

IMPROVING SCHEDULING OF COMMUNICATION INTENSIVE PARALLEL APPLICATIONS ON HETEROGENEOUS COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS

2005· article· en· W1985747745 on OpenAlexaff
Renato Porfírio Ishii, Rodrigo Fernandes de Mello, Luciano José Senger, Marcos José Santana, Regina Helena Carlucci Santana, Laurence T. Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueParallel Processing Letters · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Distributed computingLatency (audio)Telecommunications networkParallel computingPerformance metricComputer networkMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new model for the evaluation of the impacts of processing operations resulting from the communication among processes. This model quantifies the traffic volume imposed on the communication network by means of the latency parameters and the overhead. Such parameters represent the load that each process imposes over the network and the delay on CPU, as a consequence of the network operations. This delay is represented on the model by means of metric measurements slowdown. The equations that quantify the costs involved in the processing operation and message exchange are defined. In the same way, equations to determine the maximum network bandwidth are used in the decision-making scheduling. The proposed model uses a constant that delimitates the communication network maximum allowed usage, this constant defines two possible scheduling techniques: group scheduling or through communication network. Such techniques are incorporated to the DPWP policy, generating an extension of this policy. Experimental and simulation results confirm the performance enhancement of parallel applications under supervision of the extended DPWP policy, compared to the executions supervised by the original DPWP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParallel Processing LettersSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207