Mary, Hugo, and Hugo*: Learning to schedule distributed data‐parallel processing jobs on shared clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Distributed data‐parallel processing systems like MapReduce, Spark, and Flink are popular for analyzing large datasets using cluster resources. Resource management systems like YARN or Mesos in turn allow multiple data‐parallel processing jobs to share cluster resources in temporary containers. Often, the containers do not isolate resource usage to achieve high degrees of overall resource utilization despite overprovisioning and the often fluctuating utilization of specific jobs. However, some combinations of jobs utilize resources better and interfere less with each other when running on the same shared nodes than others. This article presents an approach for improving the resource utilization and job throughput when scheduling recurring distributed data‐parallel processing jobs in shared clusters. The approach is based on reinforcement learning and a measure of co‐location goodness to have cluster schedulers learn over time which jobs are best executed together on shared resources. We evaluated this approach over the last years with three prototype schedulers that build on each other: Mary, Hugo, and Hugo*. For the evaluation we used exemplary Flink and Spark jobs from different application domains and clusters of commodity nodes managed by YARN. The results of these experiments show that our approach can increase resource utilization and job throughput significantly.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".