J. D. Padhye and L. Dowdy, "Dynamic versus adaptive processor allocation policies for message passing parallel computers: an empirical comparison". In Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, D. G. Feitelson and L. Rudolph (eds.), pp. 224--243, Springer-Verlag, 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 1162.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....and assigning non preemptive priorities to certain job classes for admission to fixed partitions. McCann and Zahorjan [51] found that efficiency preserving scheduling using folding allowed performance to remain much better than with equipartitioning (EQUI) as load increases. Padhye and Dowdy [60] compare the effectiveness of treating jobs as moldable to that of exploiting their malleability by folding. They find that the former approach suffices unless jobs are irregular (i.e. evolving) in their pattern of resource consumption. Similarly, in the context of quantum based allocation of ....

J. D. Padhye and L. Dowdy, "Dynamic versus adaptive processor allocation policies for message passing parallel computers: an empirical comparison". In Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, D. G. Feitelson and L. Rudolph (eds.), pp. 224--243, Springer-Verlag, 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 1162.

....[9] has developed a method for delay prediction that may be more useful. There has been a lot of research on how applications can use different number of processors in order to adjust to current load conditions. Two main categories are adaptive partitioning [5, 7, 8] and dynamic partitioning [4, 6]. Adaptive partitioning algorithms make decisions on job partition sizes before their start. Dynamic partitioning can change job partition size during its running time. Most of these studies use response time as metric and assume that all jobs can run on any partition size with the same ....

J.D. Padhye and L. W. Dowdy, "Dynamic versus Adaptive Processor Allocation Policies for Message Passing Parallel Computers: An Empirical Comparison, " Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1162, 1996.

....and numbered in Figure 4, depending on the experiment. The distributions for the execution overhead parameters will be explained as each experiment is introduced; these distributions are motivated by comparisons with earlier results [23] or by speedups that are encountered in practice (e.g. [24, 22]) Arrivals are assumed to be Poisson unless otherwise specified, and the system size (P ) is 128 processing nodes in all experiments. The simulations were performed using the batch means method of generating confidence intervals, with batch size ranging from 100,000 to 200,000 job departures, ....

J. D. Padhye, L. W. Dowdy, Dynamic versus Adaptive Processor Allocation Policies for Message Passing Parallel Computers: An Empirical Comparison. Proc. IPPS '96 Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Systems, Honolulu, Hawaii, April 1996.

....reallocations on every job arrival and departure. Although folding tends to perform better when the number of jobs in the system is a power of two (rotations are minimized) it outperforms equipartitioning in an analytic model, a Markovian birth death model, and a simulation. Padhye and Dowdy [PD96] compare adaptive and dynamic policies. An adaptive algorithm (RA) based on those studied by Rosti et al. RSD 94] is compared with a dynamic EQ policy and a folding policy similar to that studied by McCann and Zahorjan [MZ94] described above) Using a synthetic workload running on an Intel ....

J. D. Padhye and L. W. Dowdy. Dynamic versus adaptive processor allocation policies for message passing parallel computers: An empirical comparison. In Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing -- IPPS '96 Workshop, volume 1162 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, New York, NY, USA, 1996. Springer-Verlag Inc.

....This avoids the inefficiencies of executing the job on an unsuitable number of PEs just to see what happens. One problem with dynamic partitioning is the overhead of re partitioning, and possible need to transfer computation state from one processor to another (in distributed memory machines) [446, 441, 543, 289]. The common solution is to limit the rate of such reallocations [422] or to perform them at predefined points in the application where the state is minimal [630, 629, 185, 521] In addition, it should be noted that proposed dynamic partitioning schemes suffer from the same memory oblivion as ....

J. D. Padhye and L. Dowdy, "Dynamic versus adaptive processor allocation policies for message passing parallel computers: an empirical comparison". In Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, D. G. Feitelson and L. Rudolph (eds.), pp. 224--243, Springer-Verlag, 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 1162.

.... and Zahorjan found that efficiencypreserving scheduling using folding allowed performance to remain much better than with equipartitioning (EQUI) as load increases [52] Padhye and Dowdy compare the effectiveness of treating jobs as moldable to that of exploiting their malleability by folding [61]. They find that the former approach suffices unless jobs are irregular (i.e. evolving) in their pattern of resource consumption. Similarly, in the context of quantum based allocation of processing intervals, Chiang et al. showed that static processor allocations (for which jobs need only be ....

J. D. Padhye and L. Dowdy, "Dynamic versus adaptive processor allocation policies for message passing parallel computers: an empirical comparison". In Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, D. G. Feitelson and L. Rudolph (eds.), pp. 224--243, SpringerVerlag, 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 1162.

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