Multi-resource fair sharing for datacenter jobs with placement constraints
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
Providing quality-of-service guarantees by means of fair sharing has never been more challenging in datacenters. Due to the heterogeneity of machine configurations, datacenter jobs frequently specify placement constraints, restricting them to run on a particular class of machines meeting specific hardware/software requirements. In addition, jobs have diverse demands across multiple resource types, and may saturate any of the CPU, memory, or storage resources. Despite the rich body of recent work on datacenter scheduling, it remains unclear how multi-resource fair sharing is defined and achieved for jobs with placement constraints. In this paper, we propose a new sharing policy called Task Share Fairness (TSF). With TSF, jobs are better off sharing the datacenter, and are better off reporting demands and constraints truthfully. We have prototyped TSF on Apache Mesos and confirmed its service guarantees in a 50-node EC2 cluster. Trace-driven simulations have further revealed that TSF speeds up 60% of tasks over existing fair schedulers.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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