MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dynamic Scheduling Strategies for Resource Optimization in Computing Environments

2024· article· en· W4408856448 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoye Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDistributed computingDynamic priority schedulingProcessor schedulingScheduling (production processes)Resource (disambiguation)Computer networkMathematical optimizationQuality of service

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid development of cloud-native architecture has promoted the widespread application of container technology, but the optimization problems in container scheduling and resource management still face many challenges. This paper proposes a container scheduling method based on multi-objective optimization, which aims to balance key performance indicators such as resource utilization, load balancing and task completion efficiency. By introducing optimization models and heuristic algorithms, the scheduling strategy is comprehensively improved, and experimental verification is carried out using the real Google Cluster Data dataset. The experimental results show that compared with traditional static rule algorithms and heuristic algorithms, the optimized scheduling scheme shows significant advantages in resource utilization, load balancing and burst task completion efficiency. This shows that the proposed method can effectively improve resource management efficiency and ensure service quality and system stability in complex dynamic cloud environments. At the same time, this paper also explores the future development direction of scheduling algorithms in multi-tenant environments, heterogeneous cloud computing, and cross-edge and cloud collaborative computing scenarios, and proposes research prospects for energy consumption optimization, adaptive scheduling and fairness. The research results not only provide a theoretical basis and practical reference for container scheduling under cloud-native architecture, but also lay a foundation for further realizing intelligent and efficient resource management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207