Parallel job scheduling policies to improve fairness : a case study.

Balancing fairness, user performance, and system performance is a critical concern when developing and installing parallel schedulers. Sandia uses a customized scheduler to manage many of their parallel machines. A primary function of the scheduler is to ensure that the machines have good utilization and that users are treated in a 'fair' manner. A separate compute process allocator (CPA) ensures that the jobs on the machines are not too fragmented in order to maximize throughput. Until recently, there has been no established technique to measure the fairness of parallel job schedulers. This paper introduces a 'hybrid' fairness metric that is similar to recently proposed metrics. The metric uses the Sandia version of a 'fairshare' queuing priority as the basis for fairness. The hybrid fairness metric is used to evaluate a Sandia workload. Using these results, multiple scheduling strategies are introduced to improve performance while satisfying user and system performance constraints

Fairness-aware scheduling on single-ISA heterogeneous multi-cores

Single-ISA heterogeneous multi-cores consisting of small (e.g., in-order) and big (e.g., out-of-order) cores dramatically improve energy- and power-efficiency by scheduling workloads on the most appropriate core type. A significant body of recent work has focused on improving system throughput through scheduling. However, none of the prior work has looked into fairness. Yet, guaranteeing that all threads make equal progress on heterogeneous multi-cores is of utmost importance for both multi-threaded and multi-program workloads to improve performance and quality-of-service. Furthermore, modern operating systems affinitize workloads to cores (pinned scheduling) which dramatically affects fairness on heterogeneous multi-cores. In this paper, we propose fairness-aware scheduling for single-ISA heterogeneous multi-cores, and explore two flavors for doing so. Equal-time scheduling runs each thread or workload on each core type for an equal fraction of the time, whereas equal-progress scheduling strives at getting equal amounts of work done on each core type. Our experimental results demonstrate an average 14% (and up to 25%) performance improvement over pinned scheduling through fairness-aware scheduling for homogeneous multi-threaded workloads; equal-progress scheduling improves performance by 32% on average for heterogeneous multi-threaded workloads. Further, we report dramatic improvements in fairness over prior scheduling proposals for multi-program workloads, while achieving system throughput comparable to throughput-optimized scheduling, and an average 21% improvement in throughput over pinned scheduling

Scheduling of data-intensive workloads in a brokered virtualized environment

Providing performance predictability guarantees is increasingly important in cloud platforms, especially for data-intensive applications, for which performance depends greatly on the available rates of data transfer between the various computing/storage hosts underlying the virtualized resources assigned to the application. With the increased prevalence of brokerage services in cloud platforms, there is a need for resource management solutions that consider the brokered nature of these workloads, as well as the special demands of their intra-dependent components. In this paper, we present an offline mechanism for scheduling batches of brokered data-intensive workloads, which can be extended to an online setting. The objective of the mechanism is to decide on a packing of the workloads in a batch that minimizes the broker's incurred costs, Moreover, considering the brokered nature of such workloads, we define a payment model that provides incentives to these workloads to be scheduled as part of a batch, which we analyze theoretically. Finally, we evaluate the proposed scheduling algorithm, and exemplify the fairness of the payment model in practical settings via trace-based experiments

Revisiting Size-Based Scheduling with Estimated Job Sizes

We study size-based schedulers, and focus on the impact of inaccurate job size information on response time and fairness. Our intent is to revisit previous results, which allude to performance degradation for even small errors on job size estimates, thus limiting the applicability of size-based schedulers. We show that scheduling performance is tightly connected to workload characteristics: in the absence of large skew in the job size distribution, even extremely imprecise estimates suffice to outperform size-oblivious disciplines. Instead, when job sizes are heavily skewed, known size-based disciplines suffer. In this context, we show -- for the first time -- the dichotomy of over-estimation versus under-estimation. The former is, in general, less problematic than the latter, as its effects are localized to individual jobs. Instead, under-estimation leads to severe problems that may affect a large number of jobs. We present an approach to mitigate these problems: our technique requires no complex modifications to original scheduling policies and performs very well. To support our claim, we proceed with a simulation-based evaluation that covers an unprecedented large parameter space, which takes into account a variety of synthetic and real workloads. As a consequence, we show that size-based scheduling is practical and outperforms alternatives in a wide array of use-cases, even in presence of inaccurate size information.Comment: To be published in the proceedings of IEEE MASCOTS 201