MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551184441 · doi:10.1109/tcc.2016.2628891

<i>Adia</i>: Achieving High Link Utilization with Coflow-Aware Scheduling in Data Center Networks

2016· article· en· W2551184441 on OpenAlexaff
Jingjie Jiang, Shiyao Ma, Baochun Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDistributed computingScheduling (production processes)Dynamic priority schedulingRound-robin schedulingTwo-level schedulingFair-share schedulingComputer networkMathematical optimizationQuality of service

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Link utilization has received extensive attention since data centers become the most pervasive platform for data-parallel applications. A specific job of such applications involves communication among multiple machines. The recently proposed coflow abstraction depicts such communication through a group of parallel flows, and captures application performance through corresponding communication requirements. Existing techniques to improve link utilization, however, either restrict themselves to achieving work conservation, or merely focus on flow-level metrics and ignore coflow-level performance. In this paper, we address the coflow-aware scheduling problem with the objective of maximizing link utilization. Through theoretic analyses, we formulate the coflow-aware scheduling problem as a NP-hard open shop scheduling problem with heterogeneous concurrency. We design Adia, a hierarchical scheduling framework to conduct both inter- and intra- link scheduling. The design of Adia leverages priority-based scheduling while guarantees work-conserving and starvation-free bandwidth allocation at the same time. We also prove Adia's algorithm is two-approximate in terms of link utilization. Extensive simulation results on ns3 further show that Adia outperforms both per-flow mechanisms coflow schemes in terms of link utilization, and achieves similar coflow performance in comparison with the state-of-art coflow scheduling schemes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Cloud ComputingSame topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207