MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

List-Based Task Scheduling for Cloud Computing

2016· article· en· W2611401679 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Fasih Akbar, Ehsan Ullah Munir, M. Mustafa Rafique, Zaki Malik, Samee U. Khan, Laurence T. Yang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingDirected acyclic graphScheduling (production processes)Job shop schedulingDistributed computingTask (project management)PrioritizationQuality of serviceAlgorithmMathematical optimizationOperating systemComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cloud computing model provides global and on-demand access to resources in a seamless manner with minimal interaction with the service provider. A typical cloud data center consists of several computational resources interconnected with each other through high-speed networks. In cloud the program execution can be visualized as a collection of multiple tasks represented by Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) that execute in their logical sequence. Prioritization of these tasks plays an important role to achieve high performance and improved efficiency in a cloud environment. In this paper, we propose a novel task scheduling algorithm named Median Deviation based Task Scheduling (MDTS), which uses Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) of the Expected Time to Compute (ETC) of a task as a major attribute to calculate ranks of the given tasks. We use coefficient-of-variation (COV) based technique that considers task and machine heterogeneity to estimate the ETC of a particular DAG. The proposed algorithm is evaluated under various conditions using synthetic DAGs and real world applications. Our evaluation shows that the proposed MDTS algorithm produces high quality schedules and significantly reduces the makespan of an application by up to 25.01%.

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 score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207