Towards automated HPC scheduler configuration tuning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High performance computing (HPC) systems allow researchers and businesses to harness large amounts of computing power needed for solving complex problems. In such systems a job scheduler prioritizes the execution of jobs belonging to users of the system in a manner that allows the system to satisfy performance objectives for various groups of users while simultaneously making efficient use of available resources. Typically, system administrators have the responsibility of manually configuring or tuning the job scheduler such that the performance objectives of user groups as well as system‐level performance objectives are met. Modern job schedulers used in production systems are quite complex. Through detailed trace‐driven simulations, we show that manually tuning the configuration of production schedulers in an environment characterized by multiple performance objectives is very challenging and may not be feasible. To alleviate this problem, this paper describes a toolset that can help a system administrator to automatically configure a scheduler such that the performance objectives for various classes of users in the system as well as other system‐level performance objectives can be satisfied. A unique aspect of this work that differentiates it from the existing work on scheduler tuning is that it has been implemented to work with a widely used production scheduler. Furthermore, in contrast to the existing work it considers the challenging real‐world problem of delivering different levels of performance to different classes of users. System administrators can exploit the toolset to react quickly to changes in performance objectives and workload conditions. Case studies using synthetic and real HPC workloads demonstrate the effectiveness of the technique. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".