Selective Reservation Strategies for Backfill Job Scheduling
Although there is wide agreement that backfilling produces significant benefits in scheduling of parallel jobs, there is no clear consensus on which backfilling strategy is preferable - should conservative backfilling be used or the more aggressive EASY backfilling scheme. Using trace-based simulation, we show that if performance is viewed within various job categories based on their width (processor request size) and length (job duration), some consistent trends may be observed. Using insights gleaned by the characterization, we develop a selective reservation strategy for backfill scheduling. We demonstrate that the new scheme is better than both conservative and aggressive backfilling. We also consider the issue of fairness in job scheduling and develop a new quantitative approach to its characterization. We show that the newly proposed schemes are also comparable or better than aggressive backfilling with respect to the fairness criterion.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- K. Aida. Effect of Job Size Characteristics on Job Scheduling Performance. In Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pages 1–17, 2000. 56Google Scholar
- P. J. Keleher D. Perkovic. Randomization, Speculation, and Adaptation in Batch Schedulers. In Supercomputing, 2000. 56Google Scholar
- D.G. Feitelson. Logs of real parallel workloads from production systems. http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/labs/parallel/workload/logs.html. 56, 57
- D.G. Feitelson. Analyzing the Root Causes of Performance Evaluation Results. Technical report 2002-4, Leibniz Center, Hebrew University, 2002. 69Google Scholar
- D.G. Feitelson, L. Rudolph, U. Schwiegelshohn, K.C. Sevcik, and P. Wong. Theory and Practice in Parallel Job Scheduling. In Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pages 1–34. 1997. 55, 57Google Scholar
- D. Jackson, Q. Snell, and M. J. Clement. Core Algorithms of the Maui Scheduler. In Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pages 87–102, 2001. 56Google Scholar
- J.P._Jones and B. Nitzberg. Scheduling for Parallel Supercomputing: A Historical Perspective of Achievable Utilization. In Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pages 1–16, 1999. 55Google Scholar
- J. Krallmann, U. Schwiegelshohn, and R. Yahyapour. On the Design and Evaluation of Job Scheduling Algorithms. In Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pages 17–42, 1999. 55, 58Google Scholar
- D. Lifka. The ANL/IBM SP Scheduling System. In Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pages 295–303, 1995. 56Google Scholar
- J. Skovira, W. Chan, H. Zhou, and D. Lifka. The EASY-LoadLeveler API Project. In Wkshp. on Job Sched. Strategies for Parallel Processing, pages 41–47, 1996. 55, 56Google Scholar
- S. Srinivasan, R. Kettimuthu, V. Subramani, and P. Sadayappan. Characterization of Backfilling Strategies for Parallel Job Scheduling. In Proceedings of the ICPP-2002 Workshops, pages 514–519, 2002. 69Google Scholar
- A. Streit. On Job Scheduling for HPC-Clusters and the dynP Scheduler. In Proc. Intl. Conf. High Perf. Comp., pages 58–67, 2001. 56Google Scholar
- D. Talby and D. G. Feitelson. Supporting Priorities and Improving Utilization of the IBM SP Scheduler Using Slack-Based Backfilling. In Proceedings of the 13th International Parallel Processing Symposium, pages 513–517, 1999. 56, 70Google Scholar