Scheduling advance reservations with priorities in Grid computing systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grid computing systems utilize distributively owned and geographically dispersed resources for providing a wide variety of services for various applications. One of the key considerations in Grid computing systems is resource management with quality of service constraints. The quality of service constraints dictate that submitted tasks should be completed by the Grid in a timely fashion while delivering at least a certain level of service for the duration of execution. Because t e Grid is a highly "dynamic" system due to the arrival and departure of tasks and resources, it is necessary to perform advance reservations of resources to ensure their availability, and to meet the requirements of the different tasks. This thesis introduces two new scheduling algorithms for advance reservations including co-reservations, namely, 'Reservation Scheduler with Priorities and Benefit Functions' (RSPB) and 'Co-Reservation Scheduler with Priorities and Benefit Functions' (Co-RSPB). The algorithms consider the relative priorities of various reservation requests while scheduling reservations. The benefit function is used to quantify the "profit" for the client in order to remove the re-negotiation overhead in case of resource scarcity. Simulations are performed to compare proposed algorithms with an existing approach or with some comparison algorithms developed as basic comparison line in this thesis. The results indicate that the proposed algorithms can improve the overall the performance by satisfying larger number of reservation requests.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".