Selective Reservation Strategies for Backfill Job Scheduling
JSSPP '02 Revised Papers from the 8th International Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing
Characterization of Backfilling Strategies for Parallel Job Scheduling
ICPPW '02 Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Parallel Processing Workshops
A resource-allocation queueing fairness measure
Proceedings of the joint international conference on Measurement and modeling of computer systems
Job Fairness in Non-Preemptive Job Scheduling
ICPP '04 Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference on Parallel Processing
Group-wise performance evaluation of processor co-allocation in multi-cluster systems
JSSPP'07 Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Job scheduling strategies for parallel processing
Parallel job scheduling — a status report
JSSPP'04 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing
Unfairness metrics for space-sharing parallel job schedulers
JSSPP'05 Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing
Pitfalls in parallel job scheduling evaluation
JSSPP'05 Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Parallel job schedulers have mostly been evaluated/compared using performance metrics. The deductions, however, can be misleading due to selective starvation. This calls for studies in scheduler fairness. Most studies have studied performance and fairness independently. We make a simultaneous study of performance and fairness for space slicing schedulers to deduce effectiveness. We show that measurements of fairness based on measures dispersion can contradict them selves for a similar set of schedulers. We also show that implied unfairness may not be a result of job starvation. Unfairness, derived from some of the current measures, is not always an implication of scheduler ineffectiveness. We use intuition to propose heuristics that determine scheduler effectiveness. We compare deductions from the combination of performance and fairness with those of effectiveness.