A Multi-Objective Framework for Power-Aware Scheduling in Kubernetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efficient workload scheduling in Kubernetes is crucial for optimizing energy consumption and resource utilization in large-scale and heterogeneous clusters. However, existing Kubernetes schedulers either ignore power-awareness or rely on simplified, static power models, which limit their effectiveness in managing energy efficiency under dynamic workloads. To address these shortcomings, we present a multi-objective scheduling framework for online Kubernetes pod placement that jointly considers power consumption, resource utilization, and load balancing. The framework follows a two-stage design: (i) a node power–profiling component trains a machine–learning model from real power measurements to predict per-node consumption under varying utilizations; and (ii) an online scheduler uses these predictions within a multi-objective optimization formulation. We implement scheduling optimization using two algorithms, TOPSIS and NSGA-II, adapting them to the Kubernetes context, and also propose a distributed variant of the NSGA-II algorithm that parallelizes fitness evaluation with controlled migration between workers. Experimental results show that the proposed framework outperforms baseline schedulers, achieving a 40% reduction in power consumption and improvements of 74% and 68% in CPU and memory utilization, respectively, while sustaining scalability under high workloads. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to integrate learned power models and distributed multi-objective optimization into Kubernetes for power-aware pod scheduling.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".