Sampling-Based Multi-Job Placement for Heterogeneous Deep Learning Clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heterogeneous deep learning clusters commonly host a variety of distributed learning jobs. In such scenarios, the training efficiency of learning models is negatively affected by the slowest worker. To accelerate the training process, multiple learning jobs may compete for limited computational resources, posing significant challenges to multi-job placement among heterogeneous workers. This paper presents a heterogeneity-aware scheduler to solve the multi-job placement problem while taking into account job sizing and load balancing, minimizing the average Job Completion Time (JCT) of deep learning jobs. A novel scheme based on proportional training workload assignment, feasible solution categorization, and matching markets is proposed with theoretical guarantees. To further reduce the computational complexity for low latency decision-making and improve scheduling fairness, we propose to construct the sparsification of feasible solution categories through sampling, which has negligible performance loss in JCT. We evaluate the performance of our design with real-world deep neural network benchmarks on heterogeneous computing clusters. Experimental results show that, compared to existing solutions, the proposed sampling-based scheme can achieve 1) results within 2.04% of the optimal JCT with orders-of-magnitude improvements in algorithm running time, and 2) high scheduling fairness among learning jobs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".