Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jobs in computing environments have diverse and heterogeneous resource requirements. This thesis presents a study of online, non-preemptive scheduling algorithms for multiple identical machines. In this environment, users send their job requests to be served by these machines, using their resources to satisfy the requests. With multiple requests to serve, the machines need an inherent scheduling objective to optimize. We study the scheduling objectives of the average weighted completion time, the maximum flow time (which is defined as job completion time minus their release time), and the maximum stretch (the ratio of job flow time and its processing time). The key challenge addressed is resource allocation to jobs with non-uniform demands across multiple resource types, such as CPU, memory, and storage. Further, as the thesis studies the online arrival of jobs, their parameters are not revealed to the schedulers until their arrival time. We use the popular competitive ratio to measure the performance of these algorithms. We first propose an online algorithm, termed Multi-Resource Interval Scheduling (MRIS) that achieves a competitive ratio of 8R(1+ϵ) for the average weighted completion time, where R is the number of resource types. To the best of the authors knowledge, this is the first theoretical competitive analysis under the considered system. We further show that the well-known priority queue algorithms can have arbitrarily bad competitive ratios in this setting. In numerical experiments using production workload traces from Microsoft Azure, the proposed algorithm is shown to significantly outperform priority queue algorithms and other state-of-the-art schedulers. Due to stronger lower bounds, we leverage resource augmentation to provide competitive ratio bounds for algorithms for the maximum flow and maximum stretch. In these relaxed models, our algorithms additional resources compared to the optimal algorithms. Using 10R speed augmentation, we provide an algorithm that obtains no greater maximum flow time than the optimal scheduler. We use the previous algorithm as a subroutine to present an approach that achieves a maximum stretch no greater than the optimal scheduler. These algorithms are enabled by interval scheduling paradigms, where the algorithm exercises patience to wait for additional knowledge of job arrivals before committing to scheduling decisions. Although this simple idea is not novel, we use it to obtain competitive ratios for the algorithms presented.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".