A performance study of job management systems
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Job Management Systems (JMSs) efficiently schedule and monitor jobs in parallel and distributed computing environments. Therefore, they are critical for improving the utilization of expensive resources in high‐performance computing systems and centers, and an important component of Grid software infrastructure. With many JMSs available commercially and in the public domain, it is difficult to choose an optimum JMS for a given computing environment. In this paper, we present the results of the first empirical study of JMSs reported in the literature. Four commonly used systems, LSF, PBS Pro, Sun Grid Engine/CODINE, and Condor were considered. The study has revealed important strengths and weaknesses of these JMSs under different operational conditions. For example, LSF was shown to exhibit excellent throughput for a wide range of job types and submission rates. Alternatively, CODINE appeared to outperform other systems in terms of the average turn‐around time for small jobs, and PBS appeared to excel in terms of turn‐around time for relatively larger jobs. Copyright © 2004 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it