MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166650912 · doi:10.1145/2668930.2688058

A Constraint Programming Based Hadoop Scheduler for Handling MapReduce Jobs with Deadlines on Clouds

2015· article· en· W2166650912 on OpenAlexaff
Norman Lim, Shikharesh Majumdar, Peter Ashwood-Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)Carleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Cloud computingDistributed computingNetwork schedulerOperating systemConstraint programmingOpen sourceProgramming paradigmJob schedulerParallel computingDatabaseComputer networkSoftwareNetwork packetProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel MapReduce constraint programming based matchmaking and scheduling algorithm (MRCP) that can handle MapReduce jobs with deadlines and achieve high system performance is devised. The MRCP algorithm is incorporated into Hadoop, which is a widely used open source implementation of the MapReduce programming model, as a new scheduler called the CP-Scheduler. This paper originates from the collaborative research with our industrial partner concerning the engineering of resource management middleware for high performance. It describes our experiences and the challenges that we encountered in designing and implementing the prototype CP-based Hadoop scheduler. A detailed performance evaluation of the CP-Scheduler is conducted on Amazon EC2 to determine the CP-Scheduler's effectiveness as well as to obtain insights into system behaviour and performance. In addition, the CP-Scheduler's performance is also compared with an earliest deadline first (EDF) Hadoop scheduler, which is implemented by extending Hadoop's default FIFO scheduler. The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the CP-Scheduler's ability to handle an open stream of MapReduce jobs with deadlines in a Hadoop cluster.

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 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207