Executing Divisible Jobs on a Network with a Fixed Number of Processors

Extended Abstract
  • Tsan-sheng Hsu
  • Dian Rae Lopez
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1449)


In real practice, a job sometimes can be divided into s independent tasks to be distributed for execution on a network with a fixed number of processors. The overall finish time can vary widely depending on variables such as latency, data partitioning and/or data combining times, the individual execution times, the amount of data to be transferred, and the sending out of more tasks than needed. This paper studies the problem of finding an optimal task scheduling for a divisible job such that the overall finish time is minimized.

We first prove the studied problem is NP-complete and give a simple 3-OPT approximation algorithm. Then we develop a (2 + ε)-OPT linear-time approximation algorithm by generalizing our simple algorithm, where ε is an arbitrarily small constant. A linear-time 2-OPT approximation algorithm is given when we divide the tasks evenly. Algorithms to find optimal solutions are then given for two special cases: 1) when the network has exactly two processors and 2) when the evenly divided tasks have symmetric behaviors. These cases happen frequently in real practice.


Execution Time Approximation Algorithm Optimal Schedule Precedence Constraint Communication Time 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    E. Bampis, F. Guinand, and D. Trystram. Some models for scheduling parallel programs with communication delays. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 72:5–24, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Bĺażewicz, K. H. Ecker, E. Pesch, G. Schmidt, and J. Weglarz. Scheduling Computer and Manufacturing Processes. Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. C. E. Cheng and C. C. S. Sin. A state-of-the-art review of parallel-machine scheduling research. European J. Operational Research, 47:271–292, 1990.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Chrétienne. Tree scheduling with communication delays. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 49:129–141, 1994.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Chrétienne, E. G. Coffman, Jr., J. K. Lenstra, and Z. Liu, editors. Scheduling Theory and its Applications. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y. Cohen, M. S. Landy, and M. Pavel. Hierarchical coding of binary images. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-7(3):284–298, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. COMPUTERS AND INTRACTABILITY A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Geist, A. Beguelin, J. Dongarra, W. Jiang, R. Manchek, and V. Sunderam. PVM 3 User’s Guide and Reference Manual. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831, USA, May 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. L. Graram. Bounds on multiprocessing timing anomalies. SIAM Journal on Appl. Math., 17(2):416–429, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. S. Hochbaum and D. B. Shmoys. A polynomial approximation scheme for scheduling on uniform processors: Using the dual approximatiom approach. SIAM Journal on Computing, 17(3):539–551, 1988.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. Hollermann, T.-s. Hsu, D. R. Lopez, and K. Vertanen. Scheduling problems in a practical allocation model. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 1(2):129–149, 1997.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    T.-s. Hsu and D. R. Lopez. Bounds and algorithms for a practical task allocation model (extended abstract). In Proceedings of 7th International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation, volume LNCS #1178, pages 397–406. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    V. M. Lo. Task Assignment in Distributed Systems. PhD thesis, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA, October 1983.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. R. Lopez. Models and Algorithms for Task Allocation in a Parallel Environment. PhD thesis, Texas A&M University, Texas, USA, December 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. S. Malvar. Lapped transforms for efficient transformation/subband coding. IEEE Trans. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 38(6):969–978, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. G. Norman and P. Thanisch. Models of machines and computation for mapping in multicomputers. ACM Computing Surveys, 25(3):263–302, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. A. Rees and J. P. Black. An experimental investigation of distributed matrix multiplication techniques. Software — Practice and Experience, 21(10):1041–1063, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. S. Stone. Multiprocessor scheduling with the aid of network flow algorithms. IEEE Trans. on Software Eng., SE-3(1):85–93, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Strobach. Tree-structured scene adaptive coder. IEEE Trans. on Communications, 38(4):477–486, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tsan-sheng Hsu
    • 1
  • Dian Rae Lopez
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Information ScienceAcademia SinicaNankang, TaipeiTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Division of Science and MathematicsUniversity of Minnesota, MorrisMorrisUSA

Personalised recommendations