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

Measuring Scalability of Resource Management Systems

2005· article· en· W2096780974 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 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.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.028
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