On the comparison of CPLEX-computed job schedules with the self-tuning dynP job scheduler

Summary form only given. We present a comparison of CPLEX-computed job schedules with the self-tuning dynP scheduler. This scheduler switches the active scheduling policy dynamically during run time, in order to reject changing characteristics of waiting jobs. Each times the self-tuning dynP scheduler checks for a new policy a quasi offline scheduling is done as the numbers of jobs are fixed. Two questions arise from this fact: what is the optimal schedule in each self-tuning step? And what is the performance difference between the optimal schedule and the best schedule generated with one of the scheduling policies? For that we model the scheduling problem as an integer problem, which is then solved with the well-known CPLEX library. Due to the size of the problem, we apply time-scaling, i.e. the schedule is computed on a larger than one second precise scale. We use the CTC job trace as input for a discrete event simulation and evaluate the performance difference between the CPLEX-computed schedules and the schedules generated by the self-tuning dynP scheduler. The results show, that the performance of the self-tuning dynP scheduler is close to solutions computed by CPLEX. However, the self-tuning dynP scheduler needs much less time for generating the schedules than CPLEX.

[1]  Achim Streit The self-tuning dynP job-scheduler , 2002, Proceedings 16th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium.

[2]  Martin W. P. Savelsbergh,et al.  Time-Indexed Formulations for Machine Scheduling Problems: Column Generation , 2000, INFORMS J. Comput..

[3]  Achim Streit A Self-Tuning Job Scheduler Family with Dynamic Policy Switching , 2002, JSSPP.

[4]  Achim Streit,et al.  Scheduling in HPC Resource Management Systems: Queuing vs. Planning , 2003, JSSPP.

[5]  David B. Shmoys,et al.  Scheduling to Minimize Average Completion Time: Off-Line and On-Line Approximation Algorithms , 1997, Math. Oper. Res..

[6]  David B. Shmoys,et al.  Scheduling to minimize average completion time: off-line and on-line algorithms , 1996, SODA '96.

[7]  Kurt Kremer,et al.  Scheduling a metacomputer by an implicit voting system , 1994, Proceedings of 3rd IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing.

[8]  Honbo Zhou,et al.  The EASY - LoadLeveler API Project , 1996, JSSPP.

[9]  Dror G. Feitelson,et al.  Utilization, Predictability, Workloads, and User Runtime Estimates in Scheduling the IBM SP2 with Backfilling , 2001, IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst..

[10]  David A. Lifka,et al.  The ANL/IBM SP Scheduling System , 1995, JSSPP.

[11]  Dror G. Feitelson,et al.  Job Characteristics of a Production Parallel Scientivic Workload on the NASA Ames iPSC/860 , 1995, JSSPP.

[12]  Francis HEYLIGHEN,et al.  Fitness as Default: the evolutionary basis of cognitive complexity reduction , 1994 .

[13]  Axel Keller,et al.  Anatomy of a Resource Management System for HPC-Clusters , 2000 .

[14]  Dror G. Feitelson,et al.  Self-Tuning Systems , 1999, IEEE Softw..

[15]  Achim Streit On Job Scheduling for HPC-Clusters and the dynP Scheduler , 2001, HiPC.

[16]  van den Jm Marjan Akker,et al.  A time-indexed formulation for single-machine scheduling problems : column generation , 1996 .