QOS-Driven Job Scheduling: Multi-Tier Dependency Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For a cloud service provider, delivering optimal system performance while fulfilling Quality of Service (QoS) obligations is critical for maintaining a viably profitable business. This goal is often hard to attain given the irregular nature of cloud computing jobs. These jobs expect high QoS on an on-demand fashion, that is on random arrival. To optimize the response to such client demands, cloud service providers organize the cloud computing environment as a multi-tier architecture. Each tier executes its designated tasks and passes the job to the next tier; in a fashion similar, but not identical, to the traditional job-shop environments. An optimization process must take place to schedule the appropriate tasks of the job on the resources of the tier, so as to meet the QoS expectations of the job. Existing approaches employ scheduling strategies that consider the performance optimization at the individual resource level and produce optimal single-tier driven schedules. Due to the sequential nature of the multi-tier environment, the impact of such schedules on the performance of other resources and tiers tend to be ignored, resulting in a less than optimal performance when measured at the multi-tier level.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".