Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In high‐performance computing (HPC)textitworkloads (i.e. the set of computations to be completed), the same computationalworkflowof jobs (e.g. a Pipeline, a Fork&Join, or a Lattice graph) may be applied to different input files and parameters. Each of theseworkflow instanceshas the same workflow shape, but accesses (possibly) separate input, intermediate, and output files. Therefore, the selective isolation of each workflow instance can be important for maximizing scheduling flexibility and performance. However, in practice, realizing this benefit is not obvious due to a variety of problems and constraints. For example, the unmediated interaction of different workflow instances can lead to a problem offilename conflictsbetween concurrent workflow instances overwriting common files, which, for a control‐flow driven batch scheduler, may result in either unsafe computation of the multiple instances in the same sub‐directory or storage overheads when multiple directories are used. We propose a novel approach of selectively coupling and integrating job schedulers and file systems, known as aWorkflow‐aware File System(WaFS), with two major benefits. First, separate namespaces can be constructed on a per‐instance basis to maximize the concurrency of workflow instances, despite filename conflicts, while minimizing storage overhead. Second, exploiting inferred dataflow information, trade‐offs can be made between makespan and storage overhead while maintaining correctness. Through a simulation‐based study, we have shown the potential benefits of WaFS to job concurrency and we have characterized the trade‐offs that can be made between storage overhead and performance. New scheduling policies,Versioned Namespace (VNS),Overwrite‐Safe Concurrency (OSC)and hybrids, are made possible by WaFS, with different advantages and disadvantages. 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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".