MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068701179 · doi:10.1109/pdcat.2012.31

A Synchronization-Induced Checkpoint Protocol for Group-Synchronous Parallel Programs

2012· article· en· W2068701179 on OpenAlexafffund
Zunce Wei, Dhrubajyoti Goswami

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSynchronization (alternating current)Computer scienceOverhead (engineering)Protocol (science)Distributed computingData synchronizationProcess (computing)Parallel computingFault toleranceEmbedded systemComputer networkOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Group check pointing is a fix between global check pointing and log-based recovery. It features both reduced runtime overhead and localized recovery effect for improving the fault-tolerance performance of large-scale distributed systems. However, parallel programs cannot efficiently benefit from this strategy, as they often involve synchronous or semi-synchronous interactions that incur extra idling delays between processes as well as between process groups. This paper presents an analytical study on such delays and the corresponding delay optimization strategies. Observing that certain parallel programs exhibit patterns of "synchronization groups", we develop a Synchronization-Induced Checkpoint protocol that manages checkpoints around such groups. The protocol keeps advantages of ordinary group check pointing, and meanwhile minimizes the costs of synchronization-induced delays. We also broadly categorize the known synchronization patterns and establish their relations with suitable checkpoint strategies for parallel programs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207