TIAS: Two-level Information-Agnostic Job Scheduling in GPU Clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, deep learning algorithms have shown a trend towards larger models and larger datasets. Centralized training is unable keep up with the training requirements due to limited storage and computing resources, thus distributed learning is becoming an important area of research for improving learning efficiency. There are many studies on using the features of deep learning workload to design a central scheduler for production clusters.While existing work has been focusing on overall completion time and resource efficiency, little attention has been paid to the execution deadlines. To achieve a balance between the goals of deadline and non-deadline jobs, we design a Two-level Information-Agnostic Scheduling strategy(TIAS), which can schedule the two kinds of jobs together without knowing jobs’ training duration. In the first level, we use different priority calculation methods for the two kinds of jobs; in the second level, we design a new indicator "queue urgency" based on three observations to sort deadline jobs within the same queue. Experiments on a trace-driven simulator prove that TIAS can achieve the best trade-off between deadline miss rate and non-deadline jobs’ average job completion time(JCT) compared to existing solutions.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
GPU cluster job scheduling algorithm for deep learning workloads; a computer systems contribution, not a study of research.
The work studies GPU job scheduling for machine-learning workloads, not research as a system or practice.
Systems paper on GPU-cluster job scheduling for deep learning workloads, not study of research practice.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".