MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069826183 · doi:10.1109/grid.2008.4662792

Dynamic scheduling for heterogeneous Desktop Grids

2008· article· en· W2069826183 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDistributed computingScheduling (production processes)GridDynamic priority schedulingFair-share schedulingTwo-level schedulingProcessor schedulingResource (disambiguation)Operating systemMathematical optimizationComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Desktop grids have emerged as an important methodology to harness the idle cycles of millions of participant desktop PCs over the Internet. However, to effectively utilize the resources of a desktop grid, it is necessary to use scheduling policies suitable for such systems. A scheduling policy must be applicable to large-scale systems involving large numbers of machines. Also, the policy must be fault-aware in the sense that it copes with resource volatility. Further adding to the complexity of scheduling for desktop grids is the inherent heterogeneity of such systems. Sub-optimal performance would result if the scheduling policy does not take into account information on heterogeneity. In this paper, we suggest and develop several scheduling policies for desktop grid systems involving different levels of heterogeneity. In particular, we propose a policy which utilizes the solution to a linear programming problem which maximizes system capacity. We consider parallel applications that consist of independent tasks.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.230 · 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