By Topic

Equipartitioning versus marginal analysis for parallel job scheduling

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

2 Author(s)
Patrick, B.G. ; Comput. Sci./Studies, Trent Univ., Peterborough, Ont., Canada ; Jack, M.

Given n malleable and nonpreemptable parallel jobs that arrive for execution at time 0, we examine and compare two job scheduling strategies that allocate m identical processors among the n competing jobs. In all cases, n≤m. The first strategy is based on the heuristic paradigm of equipartitioning, and the second is based on the notion of marginal analysis. Equipartitioning uses no a priori information when processor allocations are made to parallel jobs. Marginal analysis, on the other hand, assumes full a priori information in order to maximize processor utility. We compare both strategies with respect to average time-to-completion (system performance) and overall time-to-completion (system efficiency). Using a simple job model characterized by sequential time-to-completion and degree of parallelism, it is demonstrated via simulation that in most cases, the uninformed strategy of equipartitioning outperforms marginal analysis with respect to system performance and without a commensurate degradation in system efficiency.

Published in:

Parallel and Distributed Computing, Applications and Technologies, 2003. PDCAT'2003. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on

Date of Conference:

27-29 Aug. 2003