MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883730011 · doi:10.5539/mas.v12n8p69

An Overview of Hadoop Scheduler Algorithms

2018· article· en· W2883730011 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Faten Hamad

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingScheduling (production processes)Distributed computingFault toleranceCluster analysisAlgorithmBig dataDatabaseData miningOperating systemMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hadoop is a cloud computing open source system, used in large-scale data processing. It became the basic computing platforms for many internet companies. With Hadoop platform users can develop the cloud computing application and then submit the task to the platform. Hadoop has a strong fault tolerance, and can easily increase the number of cluster nodes, using linear expansion of the cluster size, so that clusters can process larger datasets. However Hadoop has some shortcomings, especially in the actual use of the process of exposure to the MapReduce scheduler, which calls for more researches on Hadoop scheduling algorithms.This survey provides an overview of the default Hadoop scheduler algorithms and the problem they have. It also compare between five Hadoop framework scheduling algorithms in term of the default scheduler algorithm to be enhanced, the proposed scheduler algorithm, type of cluster applied either heterogeneous or homogeneous, methodology, and clusters classification based on performance evaluation. Finally, a new algorithm based on capacity scheduling and use of perspective resource utilization to enhance Hadoop scheduling is proposed.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207