EFFICIENT PARALLEL JOB SCHEDULING USING GANG SERVICE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gang scheduling has been widely used as a practical solution to the dynamic parallel job scheduling problem. To overcome some of the limitations of traditional Gang scheduling algorithms, Concurrent Gang is proposed as a class of scheduling policies which allows the flexible and simultaneous scheduling of multiple parallel jobs. It hence improves the space sharing characteristics of Gang scheduling while preserving all other advantages. To provide a sound analysis of Concurrent Gang performance, a novel methodology based on the traditional concept of competitive ratio is also introduced. Dubbed dynamic competitive ratio, the new method is used to compare dynamic bin packing algorithms used in this paper. These packing algorithms apply to the Concurrent Gang scheduling of a workload generated by a statistical model. Moreover, dynamic competitive ratio is the figure of merit used to evaluate and compare packing strategies for job scheduling under multiple constraints. It will be shown that for the unidimensional case there is a small difference between the performance of best fit and first fit; first fit can hence be used without significant system degradation. For the multidimensional case, when memory is also considered, we concluded that the packing algorithm must try to balance the resource utilization in all dimensions simulataneously, instead of given priority to only one dimension of the problem.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".