MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974742520 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/201921403027

Modeling and Simulation of Load Balancing Strategies for Computing in High Energy Physics

2019· article· en· W2974742520 on OpenAlexaff
René Caspart, Patrick Firnkes, G. Quast, Ralf Reussner, Maximilian Stemmer-Grabow

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGridComputer scienceSupercomputerDistributed computingGrid computingLoad balancing (electrical power)Scheduling (production processes)Job schedulerSimulationComputational scienceCloud computingParallel computingOperating systemMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The amount of data to be processed by experiments in high energy physics (HEP) will increase tremendously in the coming years. To cope with this increasing load, most efficient usage of the resources is mandatory. Furthermore, the computing resources for user jobs in HEP will be increasingly distributed and heterogeneous, resulting in more difficult scheduling due to the increasing complexity of the system. We aim to create a simulation for the WLCG helping the HEP community to solve both challenges: a more efficient utilization of the grid and coping with the rising complexity of the system. There is currently no simulation in existence which helps the operators of the grid to make the correct decisions while optimizing the load balancing strategy. This paper presents a proof of concept in which the computing jobs at the Tier 1 center GridKa are modeled and simulated. To model the computing jobs we extended the Palladio simulator with a mechanism to simulate load balancing strategies. Furthermore, we implemented an automated model parameter analysis and model creation. Finally, the simulation results are validated using real-word performance data. Our results suggest that simulating larger parts of the grid is feasible and can help to optimize the utilization of the grid.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.352 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicSoftware System Performance and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207