Using site-level modeling to evaluate the performance of parallel system schedulers

Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society's Annual International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunications Systems, MASCOTS

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 167-178

  Shmueli, Edi ^a,b   Feitelson, Dror G ^b  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

^b IBM HAIFA RESEARCH LAB   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FEEDBACK EFFECTS; MODEL EVALUATION; PARALLEL SCHEDULING; PARALLEL SYSTEM; PERFORMANCE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY; PERFORMANCE PREDICTION; REAL ENVIRONMENTS; REAL WORKLOADS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; SCHEDULING; TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION LANGUAGES;

EID: 51049122489     PISSN: 15267539     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. M. F. Arlitt. Characterizing web user sessions. SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev., 28(2):50-63, 2000.
2. M. S. Borella. Source models of network game traffic. Comput. Commun., 23(4):403-410, Feb 2000.
3. W. Cirne and F. Berman. A comprehensive model of the supercomputer workload. In 4th Workshop Workload Charact., Dec 2001.
4. A. B. Downey. A parallel workload model and its implications for processor allocation. Cluster Computing, 1(1):133-145, 1998.
5. D. G. Feitelson. Packing schemes for gang scheduling. In Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pages 89-110. Springer-Verlag, 1996. LNCS vol. 1162.
6. G. R. Ganger and Y. N. Patt. Using system-level models to evaluate I/O subsystem designs. IEEE T. Comput., 47(6):667-678, Jun 1998.
7. H. Hlavacs, E. Hotop, and G. Kotsis. Workload generation by modeling user behavior, 2000.
8. H. Hlavacs and G. Kotsis. Modeling user behavior: A layered approach. In Conf. Measurement & Simulation of Comput. & Telecommunication Syst., pages 218-225, 1999.
9. W. W. Hsu and A. J. Smith. The performance impact of I/O optimizations and disk improvements. IBM J. Res. Dev., 48(2):255-289, Mar 2004.
10. J. Jann, P. Pattnaik, H. Franke, F. Wang, J. Skovira, and J. Riodan. Modeling of workload in MPPs. In Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pages 95-116. Springer Verlag, 1997. LNCS vol. 1291.
11. D. Lifka. The ANL/IBM SP scheduling system. In Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pages 295-303. Springer-Verlag, 1995. LNCS vol. 949.
12. U. Lublin and D. G. Feitelson. The workload on parallel supercomputers: Modeling the characteristics of rigid jobs. J. Parallel & Distrib. Comput., 63(11):1105-1122, Nov 2003.
13. J. Mache, V. Lo, and S. Garg. Job scheduling that minimizes network contention due to both communication and I/O. In 14th Intl. Parallel & Distrib. Proc. Symp., pages 457-463, May 2000.
14. Parallel workloads archive. URL http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/labs/parallel/ workload/.
15. S. L. Scott and G. S. Sohi. The use of feedback in multiprocessors and its application to tree saturation control. IEEE T. Parallel & Distributed Syst., 1(4):385-398, Oct 1990.
16. D. Talby. A User-Based Model of Parallel Workloads. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Hebrew Univeraity, in prep.
17. A. Wong, L. Oliker, W. Kramer, T. Kaltz, and D. Bailey. System utilization benchmark on the Cray T3E and IBM SP2. In Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pages 56-67. Springer Verlag, 2000. LNCS vol. 1911.
18. J. Zilber, O. Amit, and D. Talby. What is worth learning from parallel workloads?: A user and session based analysis. In Proc. 19th Intl. Conf. Supercomputing, pages 377-386, Jun 2005.