Renting servers in the cloud: The case of equal duration jobs
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
Renting servers in the cloud is a generalization of the bin packing problem , motivated by job allocation to servers in cloud computing applications. Jobs arrive in an online manner, and need to be assigned to servers; their duration and size are known at the time of arrival. There is an infinite supply of identical servers, each having one unit of computational capacity per unit of time. A server can be rented at any time and continues to be rented until all jobs assigned to it finish. The cost of an assignment is the sum of durations of rental periods of all servers. The goal is to assign jobs to servers to minimize the overall cost while satisfying server capacity constraints. We focus on analyzing two natural algorithms, NextFit and FirstFit , for the case of jobs of equal duration. It is known that the competitive ratio of NextFit and FirstFit are at most 3 and 4 respectively for this case. We prove a tight bound of 2 on the competitive ratio of NextFit . For FirstFit , we establish a lower bound of ≈ 2 . 519 on the competitive ratio, even when jobs have only two distinct arrival times 0 and t . Using the weight function technique, we show that this bound is almost tight when there are only two arrival times; we obtain an upper bound of 2.565 on the asymptotic competitive ratio of FirstFit . In fact, we show an upper bound of 168 131 ( 1 + t ) on the asymptotic competitive ratio for any t > 0 . 559 . For the case when jobs have arrival times 0 and 1 and duration 2, we show a lower bound of ≈ 1 . 89 and an upper bound of 2 on the strict competitive ratio of FirstFit . Finally, we show an upper bound of 3 / 2 on the competitive ratio of long-running uniform servers.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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