Kenneth C. Sevcik. Characterizations of Parallelism in Applications and their Use in Scheduling. In Proceedings of the 1989.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... policies consider applications characteristics and propose to execute, for instance, the smallest job first , SJF [Majumdar88] or the largest job first , LJF [Chen88] Other works that also analyze different application characteristics and their use in processor scheduling are [Majumdar91] [Sevcik89] and [Chiang94] However, they are mainly focused on deciding which application must be executed as a function of their execution time. These scheduling policies assume that information about the workload is available a priori, and that the number of processors requested by applications is fixed ....

K. C. Sevcik, "Characterization of Parallelism in Applications and their Use in Scheduling", in Proc. of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conf., pp. 171-180, May 1989.

....the performance as a function of time. It first builds simpler submodels for individual phases, then the totality of submodels describes the performance of the entire execution. Much phase analysis research focuses on how to improve speedup and predict scalability properties. Sevcik in [9] introduced a parallelism profile that characterizes the degree of parallelism (number of busy processors) within an application as function of time. He developed scheduling rules based on four parameters: average, minimum, maximum, and variance parallelism. Several algorithms for automatic phase ....

Sevcik, K. C. Characterization of Parallelism in Applications and Their Use in Scheduling. In Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, May 1989

.... supercomputer schedulers accept rigid requests [17] 20] 22] 27] and thus much of the research available in the literature assume jobs to be rigid, e.g. 1] 2] 14] 21] 33] Closer to our own work, there has been studies on processor allocation [3] 8] 10] 12] 16] 19] 23] 25] 28] 29] [30] [31] Processor allocation consists of enabling the supercomputer scheduler to select how many processors to allocate to a parallel job based on information about the characteristics of the job (e.g. sequential fraction, average parallelism, and maximum 28 parallelism) and or the system (e.g. ....

....28 parallelism) and or the system (e.g. system load) Jobs are typically assumed to be fully moldable in the sense that they can use any number of processors, and the user typically do not provide request times. Strategies that use knowledge about the job have been proposed [3] 8] 12] 25] 28] [30]. Adaptation to the system load has also been investigated before [3] 19] 23] Downey has studied whether the job ahead of a FIFO queue should delay its start up to use more processors [10] Non work conserving strategies were also evaluated by Rosti et al. [29] The results of these efforts ....

K. Sevcik. "Characterization of parallelism in applications and their use in scheduling". Proc. of the 1989.

.... policies consider applications characteristics and propose to execute, for instance, the smallest job first , SJF [Majumdar88] or the largest job first , LJF [Chen88] Other works that also analyze different application characteristics and their use in processor scheduling are [Majumdar91] [Sevcik89] and [Chiang94] However, they are mainly focused on deciding which application must be executed as a function of their execution time. These scheduling policies assume that information about the workload is available a priori, and that the number of processors requested by applications is fixed ....

K. C. Sevcik, "Characterization of Parallelism in Applications and their Use in Scheduling ", in Proc. of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference, pp. 171-180, May 1989.

....by a static analysis of the code and the input file [DI89, B 91, Sar89a] but these techniques often fail outside of toy examples. 6 In a feeble attempt to circumvent the problem, some papers suggest that the users themselves provide some estimates of job parameters [MEB91, Kum88, PD89, Sev89] Even ignoring the fact that this is too far removed from current computing practice, we have to contend with the problem that users will abuse the system by quoting fake values for the parameters. 6 In contrast, estimating the t parameters of the machine (called performance evaluation) is a ....

.... J jobs are not known to be identical in fact, what if nothing is known about them In that case, most papers from academia suggest dynamic space slicing: jobs are space sliced, and as soon as a job terminates the remaining jobs are re allocated to make use of the free PEs [NSS93, R 94, Sev89, ST93, EZL89, SHCV94, LV90, MVZ93, MZ95, TG89, D 95] Unfortunately, in most cases, this result is obtained by facilely neglecting the exorbitant cost of re allocating jobs (see Section 3.7.4) Industry practices gang scheduling: On the other hand, the industry has always leaned towards ....

K.C. Sevcik. Characterization of parallelism in applications and their use in scheduling. In SIGMETRICS Conference on Measurement and Modelling of Computer Systems, pages 171--180, May 1989.

....employed in a number of commercial systems. This is due in part to its low system overhead and its simplicity from both the system and application viewpoints. The static scheduling approach, however, can lead to relatively low system throughputs and resource utilizations under nonuniform workloads [34, 21, 22, 25, 35], as is common in scientific engineering computing environments [6] Adaptive partitioning policies, where the number of processors allocated to a job is determined when jobs arrive and depart based on the current system state, have also been considered in a number of research studies [14, 42, 8, ....

K. C. Sevcik. Characterizations of parallelism in applications and their use in scheduling. In Proc. ACM SIGMETRICS Conf., 171--180, 1989.

....employed in a number of commercial systems. This is due in part to its low system overhead and its simplicity from both the system and application viewpoints. The static scheduling approach, however, can lead to relatively low system throughputs and resource utilizations under nonuniform workloads [33, 26, 27, 30, 34], which can be common in scientific and engineering computing environments. Adaptive partitioning policies, where the number of nodes allocated to a job is determined when jobs enter and leave based on the current system state, have also been considered in a number of research studies [21, 38, 16, ....

K. C. Sevcik. Characterizations of parallelism in applications and their use in scheduling. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, pages 171--180, May 1989.

....job queues. Internal fragmentation can be a problem with this scheme if jobs are able to utilize a number of processors that does not correspond to an existing partition size. The utility of dividing the available processors into equal sized partitions has been studied with analytic models [Sev89, MEB91, ST93, SST93] compared with adaptive policies [Sev89, MEB91, GST91, RSD 94, ST93] compared with timeslicing policies [SST93] and compared with both adaptive and dynamic policies [NSS93b, NSS93a, NSS97] The general conclusion is that fixed partitioning can perform well if the ....

....this scheme if jobs are able to utilize a number of processors that does not correspond to an existing partition size. The utility of dividing the available processors into equal sized partitions has been studied with analytic models [Sev89, MEB91, ST93, SST93] compared with adaptive policies [Sev89, MEB91, GST91, RSD 94, ST93] compared with timeslicing policies [SST93] and compared with both adaptive and dynamic policies [NSS93b, NSS93a, NSS97] The general conclusion is that fixed partitioning can perform well if the workload is wellunderstood and jobs tend to have low variation in ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Kenneth C. Sevcik. Characterizations of Parallelism in Applications and their Use in Scheduling. In Proceedings of the

....so far and the IRIX scheduling policy. Finally, section 6 presents the conclusions of this work. 2 Related Work Many researchers have studied the use of characteristics of the applications calculated at run time to perform processor scheduling. Majumdar et al. [16] Parsons et al. [24] Sevcik [27][28], Chiang et al. [6] and Leutenegger et al. [14] have studied the usefulness of using application characteristics in processor scheduling. They have demonstrated that parallel applications have very different characteristics such as the speedup or 2. In our environment, the multiprogramming level is ....

K.C.Sevcik. "Characterization of Parallelism in Applications and their Use in Scheduling". In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference, pages 171-180,May 1989

....static precedence structure, as opposed to task graphs with probabilistic structure such as task graph families [25, 83] A workload is an assignment of a duration to each task in the task graph. This dissertation follows the significant body of published work that considers static task durations [29, 34 36, 56, 67]. This is in contrast to the use of stochastic task durations in other work [12, 13, 41, 46, 57, 61, 63, 70] In the future, the main results in this dissertation could be extended to stochastic workloads, continuing on from earlier work in this area [65] In the illustrative task graph shown in ....

K. C. Sevcik. Characterizations of parallelism in applications and their use in scheduling. Proceedings of the

.... supercomputer schedulers accept rigid requests [20] 23] 25] 28] and thus much of the research available in the literature assume jobs to be rigid, e.g. 1] 2] 16] 19] 24] 33] 35] Closer to our own work, there has been studies on processor allocation [3] 5] 12] 14] 18] 29] 30] [31] [32] Processor allocation consists of selecting how many processors to allocate to a parallel job based on information about the characteristics of the job (e.g. sequential fraction, average parallelism, and maximum parallelism) and or the system (e.g. system load) Jobs are assumed to be fully ....

....state. Despite such evidence, scheduling solutions currently in use [20] 23] 25] 28] leave processor allocation to the user by accepting only rigid requests. We believe that this is due to the difficulty in proving that proposed processor allocation solutions [3] 5] 12] 14] 18] 29] 30] [31] [32] will work in practice. Such difficulty happens because existing work are more theoretical in nature and thus, in order to keep things tractable, make use of strong assumptions (e.g. Poisson job arrival, full moldability, and accurate information about jobs) Moreover, the very lack of a ....

K. Sevcik. Characterization of parallelism in applications and their use in scheduling. Proceedings

.... Changing A Job s Processor Allocation Because the efficiency of parallel jobs generally decreases as their processor allocation increases, it is necessary to decrease processor allocations to moldable jobs as the overall system load increases in order to avoid system saturation (see Sevcik [77]) Zahorjan and McCann [97] found that allocating processors to evolving jobs according to their dynamic needs led to much better performance than either run to completion with a rigid allocation or round robin. For the overhead parameters they chose, round robin beat run to completion only at ....

....time. Similar schemes in which co scheduling is triggered by communication events were described by Sobalvarro and Weihl [83] and by Dusseau, Arpaci, and Culler [15] Taking system load and minimum and maximum parallelism of each job into account as well, still higher throughputs can be sustained [77]. Chiang et al. 8] show that use of knowledge of some job characteristics plus permission to use a single preemption per job allows run to completion policies to approach ideal (i.e. no overhead) EQUI, and Anastasiadis et al. 3] show that, by setting the processor allocation of moldable jobs ....

K. C. Sevcik, "Characterization of parallelism in applications and their use in scheduling ". In SIGMETRICS Conf. Measurement & Modeling of Comput. Syst., pp. 171--180, May 1989.

....of the one (16) that was used by Rosti et al. 18] 5. 3 The Arrival Process The offered load of a multiprocessor system with P servers is defined as follows : Load = E(T (1) P Theta Mean Interarrival Time (10) 16 where E(T (1) is the mean total execution time of the jobs on one processor [21]. In the case of the jobs that have been used in our study, we have: E(T (1) E(W ) E(fi) E(ff) We already know that E(W ) 13:76. By using the theorem of total expectation across the three different values of p max , we find E(fi) 0:30 and E(ff) 8 ....

Kenneth C. Sevcik. Characterizations of Parallelism in Applications and Their Use in Scheduling. In ACM SIGMETRICS Conf. Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, pages 171--180, May 1989.

....set of disciplines that have been proposed and evaluated in the literature. Disciplines presented in this paper are italicized and have the prefix LSF ; for the adaptive ones, a regular and a SUBSET version are provided. Rigid Adaptive Work Speedup Mem. RTC RTC [ZM90] A ,A mM [Sev89] yes min max no PPJ [RSD 94] ASP [ST93] no pws no NQS PWS [GST91] no no no LSF Equal,IP [RSD 94] no no no LoadLeveler SDF [CMV94] yes no no EASY [Lif95] AVG,AdaptAVG [CMV94] no avg no LSF RTC LSF RTC AD(SUBSET) either either either Preemption simple Cosched (matrix) Ous82] ....

Kenneth C. Sevcik. Characterizations of parallelism in applications and their use in scheduling. In Proceedings of the

No context found.

Kenneth C. Sevcik. Characterizations of Parallelism in Applications and their Use in Scheduling. In Proceedings of the 1989.

No context found.

Sevcik, K.C.: Characterizations of Parallelism in Applications and their use in Scheduling. Performance Evaluation Review 17 (1989) 171--180

No context found.

K. C. Sevcik, "Characterizations of Parallelism in Applications and their use in Scheduling," Performance Evaluation Review, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 171--180, May 1989.

No context found.

Sevcik, K. C. 1989. Characterizations of parallelism in applications and their use in scheduling. In Proc. of ACM Conf. on Measurement and Modeling of Comp. Sys., 171--180.

No context found.

K. Sevcik. Characterization of parallelism in applications and their use in scheduling . Performance Evaluation Review, 17(1):171-- 180, 1989.

No context found.

K.C. Sevcik. Characterization of parallelism in applications and their use in scheduling . Performance Evaluation Review, 17(1):171--180, 1989.

No context found.

K. Sevcik. Characterization of parallelism in applications and their use in scheduling . Performance Evaluation Review, 17(1):171-- 180, 1989.

No context found.

K. C. Sevcik. Characterization of parallelism in applications and their use in schduling. Performance Evaluation Review, Special Issue, 1989 ACM SIGMETRICS, 17(- May 1989.

No context found.

K.C. Sevcik, Characterization of parallelism in applications and their use in schduling, Performance Evaluation Rev., Special Issue, 1989.

No context found.

K. C. Sevcik, Characterizations of Parallelism in Applications and Their Use in Scheduling. Proc.

No context found.

K.C. Sevcik, "Characterizations of Parallelism in Applications and Their Use in Scheduling", ACM Performance Evaluation Review, Vol.17, May 1989.

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC