Proactive Failure-Aware Task Scheduling Framework for Cloud Computing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cloud computing is a widely adopted platform for executing tasks of different application types that belong to the end users. In the cloud, application task is prone to failure for several reasons, such as software bug or exception, virtual or physical infrastructure failure. Cloud service providers are responsible for managing availability of scheduled computing tasks in order to provide high level QoS for their customers. Protecting task against failure is a challenging and not a trivial mission due to dynamic, heterogeneous and large distributed structure of the cloud environment. The existing works in the literature focus on task failure prediction and neglect the remedy (post) actions. In this work, we first study and analyze three publicly available large cluster datasets from Google, Alibaba, and Trinity, to characterize task failure in cloud computing platform. We then propose a failure-aware task scheduling framework that can predict the termination status for a set of given tasks during the runtime, and take the appropriate remedy actions. The framework uses deep learning methods named Artificial and Convolutional Neural Network, ANN and CNN, for different prediction purposes. In addition, we formalize the actions selection problem as Integer Linear Programming (ILP) model and propose a heuristic optimization solution that aims to minimize the failure probability of tasks and their resources usage. The results show ANN and CNN can achieve prediction accuracy of up to 94% and 92%, respectively using Google dataset. Moreover, the framework can protect up to 40% of tasks that are predicted as failed using Alibaba dataset by taking the appropriate remedy actions, and hence save many of cluster's resources such as CPU and RAM.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it