MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096780974 · doi:10.1109/ipdps.2005.277

Measuring Scalability of Resource Management Systems

2005· article· en· W2096780974 on OpenAlexaff
Aritra Mitra, Muthucumaru Maheswaran, Shoukat Ali

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalabilityMetric (unit)Overhead (engineering)Computer scienceDistributed computingResource (disambiguation)GridResource management (computing)Performance metricResource Management SystemResource allocationComputer networkEngineeringDatabaseOperating systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scalability refers to the extent of configuration modifications over which a system continues to be economically deployable. Until now, scalability of resource management systems (RMSs) has been examined implicitly by studying different performance measures of the RMS designs for different parameters. However, a framework is yet to be developed for quantitatively evaluating scalability to unambiguously examine the trade-offs among the different RMS designs. In this paper, we present a methodology to study scalability of RMSs based on overhead cost estimation. First, we present a performance model for a managed distributed system (e.g., Grid computing system) that separates the manager and managee. Second, based on the performance model we present a metric used to quantify the scalability of a RMS. Third, simulations are used to apply the proposed scalability metric to selected RMSs from the literature. The results show that the proposed metric is useful in quantifying the scalabilities of the RMSs.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207