Loosely coordinated coscheduling in the context of other approaches for dynamic job scheduling: a survey: Research Articles
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
Loosely coordinated (implicit/dynamic) coscheduling is a time-sharing approach that originates from network of workstations environments of mixed parallel/serial workloads and limitedsoftware support. It is meant to be an easy-to-implement and scalable approach. Considering that the percentage of clusters in parallel computing is increasing and easily portable software is needed, loosely coordinated coscheduling becomes an attractive approach for dedicated machines. Loose coordination offers attractive features as a dynamic approach. Static approaches for local job scheduling assign resources exclusively and non-preemptively. Such approaches still remain beyond the desirable resource utilization and average response times. Conversely, approaches for dynamic scheduling of jobs can preempt resources and/or adapt their allocation. They typically provide better resource utilization and response times. Existing dynamic approaches are full preemption with checkpointing, dynamic adaptation of node/CPU allocation, and time sharing via gang or loosely coordinated coscheduling. This survey presents and compares the different approaches, while particularly focusing on the less well-explored loosely coordinated time sharing. The discussion particularly focuses on the implementation problems, in terms of modification of standard operating systems, the runtime system and the communication libraries. Copyright © 2005 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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