Scheduling optimization strategy for data intensive workflows in 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
The rapid growth of data-intensive applications has led to an increased demand for efficient scheduling strategies in cloud computing environments. This paper focuses on the optimization of scheduling for data-intensive workflows, addressing the challenges posed by resource heterogeneity, complex workflow dependencies, and the need for scalability and elasticity. We propose a comprehensive approach that encompasses advanced task scheduling algorithms, dynamic resource allocation techniques, and effective parallelization and pipelining methods to enhance the performance of these workflows. The paper begins by characterizing data-intensive workflows and the cloud computing environment, highlighting the performance metrics crucial for evaluating workflow execution. It then delves into the scheduling challenges, discussing the implications of resource heterogeneity, the complexity of workflow dependencies, and the scalability and elasticity requirements of cloud-based workflows. We present optimization strategies that leverage heuristic and metaheuristic algorithms to schedule tasks efficiently, considering both task characteristics and resource capabilities. The resource allocation techniques discussed aim to optimize the utilization of cloud resources, adapting to the dynamic nature of the environment and the varying demands of tasks.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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