Workflow Scheduling in Multi-Tenant Cloud Computing Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-tenancy is one of the key features of cloud computing, which provides scalability and economic benefits to the end-users and service providers by sharing the same cloud platform and its underlying infrastructure with the isolation of shared network and compute resources. However, resource management in the context of multi-tenant cloud computing is becoming one of the most complex task due to the inherent heterogeneity and resource isolation. This paper proposes a novel cloud-based workflow scheduling (CWSA) policy for compute-intensive workflow applications in multi-tenant cloud computing environments, which helps minimize the overall workflow completion time, tardiness, cost of execution of the workflows, and utilize idle resources of cloud effectively. The proposed algorithm is compared with the state-of-the-art algorithms, i.e., First Come First Served (FCFS), EASY Backfilling, and Minimum Completion Time (MCT) scheduling policies to evaluate the performance. Further, a proof-of-concept experiment of real-world scientific workflow applications is performed to demonstrate the scalability of the CWSA, which verifies the effectiveness of the proposed solution. The simulation results show that the proposed scheduling policy improves the workflow performance and outperforms the aforementioned alternative scheduling policies under typical deployment scenarios.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".