Random Notes
  • Introduction
  • Reading list
  • Theory
    • Index
      • Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process
      • Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System
      • Using Reasoning About Knowledge to analyze Distributed Systems
      • CAP Twelve Years Later: How the “Rules” Have Changed
      • A Note on Distributed Computing
  • Operating System
    • Index
  • Storage
    • Index
      • Tachyon: Reliable, Memory Speed Storage for Cluster Computing Frameworks
      • Exploiting Commutativity For Practical Fast Replication
      • Don’t Settle for Eventual: Scalable Causal Consistency for Wide-Area Storage with COPS
      • Building Consistent Transactions with Inconsistent Replication
      • Managing Update Conflicts in Bayou, a Weakly Connected Replicated Storage System
      • Spanner: Google's Globally-Distributed Database
      • Bigtable: A Distributed Storage System for Structured Data
      • The Google File System
      • Dynamo: Amazon’s Highly Available Key-value Store
      • Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications
      • Replicated Data Consistency Explained Through Baseball
      • Session Guarantees for Weakly Consistent Replicated Data
      • Flat Datacenter Storage
      • Small Cache, Big Effect: Provable Load Balancing forRandomly Partitioned Cluster Services
      • DistCache: provable load balancing for large-scale storage systems with distributed caching
      • Short Summaries
  • Coordination
    • Index
      • Logical Physical Clocks and Consistent Snapshots in Globally Distributed Databases
      • Paxos made simple
      • ZooKeeper: Wait-free coordination for Internet-scale systems
      • Just Say NO to Paxos Overhead: Replacing Consensus with Network Ordering
      • Keeping CALM: When Distributed Consistency is Easy
      • In Search of an Understandable Consensus Algorithm
      • A comprehensive study of Convergent and Commutative Replicated Data Types
  • Fault Tolerance
    • Index
      • The Mystery Machine: End-to-end Performance Analysis of Large-scale Internet Services
      • Gray Failure: The Achilles’ Heel of Cloud-Scale Systems
      • Capturing and Enhancing In Situ System Observability for Failure Detection
      • Check before You Change: Preventing Correlated Failures in Service Updates
      • Efficient Scalable Thread-Safety-Violation Detection
      • REPT: Reverse Debugging of Failures in Deployed Software
      • Redundancy Does Not Imply Fault Tolerance
      • Fixed It For You:Protocol Repair Using Lineage Graphs
      • The Good, the Bad, and the Differences: Better Network Diagnostics with Differential Provenance
      • Lineage-driven Fault Injection
      • Short Summaries
  • Cloud Computing
    • Index
      • Improving MapReduce Performance in Heterogeneous Environments
      • CLARINET: WAN-Aware Optimization for Analytics Queries
      • MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters
      • Dryad: Distributed Data-Parallel Programs from Sequential Building Blocks
      • Resource Management
      • Apache Hadoop YARN: Yet Another Resource Negotiator
      • Mesos: A Platform for Fine-Grained Resource Sharing in the Data Center
      • Dominant Resource Fairness: Fair Allocation of Multiple Resource Types
      • Large-scale cluster management at Google with Borg
      • MapReduce Online
      • Delay Scheduling: A Simple Technique for Achieving Locality and Fairness in Cluster Scheduling
      • Reining in the Outliers in Map-Reduce Clusters using Mantri
      • Effective Straggler Mitigation: Attack of the Clones
      • Resilient Distributed Datasets: A Fault-Tolerant Abstraction for In-Memory Cluster Computing
      • Discretized Streams: Fault-Tolerant Streaming Computation at Scale
      • Sparrow: Distributed, Low Latency Scheduling
      • Making Sense of Performance in Data Analytics Framework
      • Monotasks: Architecting for Performance Clarity in Data Analytics Frameworks
      • Drizzle: Fast and Adaptable Stream Processing at Scale
      • Naiad: A Timely Dataflow System
      • The Dataflow Model:A Practical Approach to Balancing Correctness, Latency, and Cost in Massive-Scale
      • Interruptible Tasks:Treating Memory Pressure AsInterrupts for Highly Scalable Data-Parallel Program
      • PACMan: Coordinated Memory Caching for Parallel Jobs
      • Multi-Resource Packing for Cluster Schedulers
      • Other interesting papers
  • Systems for ML
    • Index
      • A Berkeley View of Systems Challenges for AI
      • Tiresias: A GPU Cluster Managerfor Distributed Deep Learning
      • Gandiva: Introspective Cluster Scheduling for Deep Learning
      • Workshop papers
      • Hidden Technical Debt in Machine Learning Systems
      • Inference Systems
      • Parameter Servers and AllReduce
      • Federated Learning at Scale - Part I
      • Federated Learning at Scale - Part II
      • Learning From Non-IID data
      • Ray: A Distributed Framework for Emerging AI Applications
      • PipeDream: Generalized Pipeline Parallelism for DNN Training
      • DeepXplore: Automated Whitebox Testingof Deep Learning Systems
      • Distributed Machine Learning Misc.
  • ML for Systems
    • Index
      • Short Summaries
  • Machine Learning
    • Index
      • Deep Learning with Differential Privacy
      • Accelerating Deep Learning via Importance Sampling
      • A Few Useful Things to Know About Machine Learning
  • Video Analytics
    • Index
      • Scaling Video Analytics on Constrained Edge Nodes
      • Focus: Querying Large Video Datasets with Low Latency and Low Cost
      • NoScope: Optimizing Neural Network Queriesover Video at Scale
      • Live Video Analytics at Scale with Approximation and Delay-Tolerance
      • Chameleon: Scalable Adaptation of Video Analytics
      • End-to-end Learning of Action Detection from Frame Glimpses in Videos
      • Short Summaries
  • Networking
    • Index
      • Salsify: Low-Latency Network Video through Tighter Integration between a Video Codec and a Transport
      • Learning in situ: a randomized experiment in video streaming
      • Short Summaries
  • Serverless
    • Index
      • Serverless Computing: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
      • Encoding, Fast and Slow: Low-Latency Video Processing Using Thousands of Tiny Threads
      • SAND: Towards High-Performance Serverless Computing
      • Pocket: Elastic Ephemeral Storage for Serverless Analytics
      • Fault-tolerant and Transactional Stateful Serverless Workflows
  • Resource Disaggregation
    • Index
  • Edge Computing
    • Index
  • Security/Privacy
    • Index
      • Differential Privacy
      • Honeycrisp: Large-Scale Differentially Private Aggregation Without a Trusted Core
      • Short Summaries
  • Misc.
    • Index
      • Rate Limiting
      • Load Balancing
      • Consistency Models in Distributed System
      • Managing Complexity
      • System Design
      • Deep Dive into the Spark Scheduler
      • The Actor Model
      • Python Global Interpreter Lock
      • About Research and PhD
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  • Motivation:
  • Tetris Scheduler:
  • Average Completion Time

Was this helpful?

  1. Cloud Computing
  2. Index

Multi-Resource Packing for Cluster Schedulers

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~xia/resources/Documents/grandl_sigcomm14.pdf

Motivation:

Current schedulers neither pack tasks nor consider all their relevant resource demands. This results in fragmentation and overallocation of resources, respectively. 1) Schedulers divide resources into slots (corresponding to some amount of memory and cores) and offer the slots greedily to the job that is furthest from its fair share(e.g. Dominant Resource Fairness) . Such scheduling results in resource fragmentation, the magnitude of which increases with the number of resources being allocated. 2) Schedulers also ignore disk and network requirements of tasks. When assigning tasks to machines, they only check that tasks’ CPU and memory needs are satisfiable. Hence, they can schedule many network or disk-intensive tasks on the same machine.

The analysis of production workloads shows that tasks are significantly diverse in their requirements and demands of tasks for different resources are not correlated.

Tetris Scheduler:

The heuristic used by Teris assumes complete knowledge of the resource requirements of tasks and resource availabilities at machines. It considers the demands of tasks along four resources: CPU, memory, disk, and network bandwidth. As a result, packing tasks to machines is analogous to multi-dimensional bin packing.

In one-dimensional space(both balls and bins), an effective heuristic proceeds by repeatedly matching the largest ball that fits in the current bin; when no more balls fit, a new bin is opened. Tetris extends this idea by defining alignment of a task relative to a machine across multiple dimensions. The alignment is defined as the dot product between task requirements and resource availabilities on machines.

More specifically:

Our allocation operates as follows. When resources on a machine become available, the scheduler first selects the set of tasks whose peak usage of each resource can be accommodated on that machine. For each task in this set, Tetris computes an alignment score to the machine. !e alignment score is a weighted dot product between the vector of machine’s available resources and the task’s peak usage of resources. !e task with the highest alignment score is scheduled and allocated its peak resource demands. !is process is repeated recursively until the machine cannot accommodate any further tasks.

The above algorithm has two nice properties: 1. Because Tetris uses the peak demand of each task, over-allocation is not possible. 2. If a particular resource is abundant on a machine, then tasks that require that resource will have higher scores compared to tasks that use the same amount of resources overall.

To incorporate task placement, Tetris computes the alignment score with only local resources and imposes a remote penalty (e.g. 10%) to penalize the use of remote resources.

Average Completion Time

Achieving packing efficiency does not necessarily improve job completion time. The challenges in improving job completion time are to balance the prioritization of jobs that have less remaining work against loss in packing efficiency. Tetris extends the idea of shortest-remaining-time-first(SRTF) by scoring job's remaining work. In other words, it will calculate the total resource requirements of all remaining tasks of the job across all dimensions. Then, to combine with packing efficiency, Tetris will combine two metrics(i.e. remaining resource usage and alignment score) using a weighted sum. For a more detailed algorithm, please refer to the paper.

PreviousPACMan: Coordinated Memory Caching for Parallel JobsNextOther interesting papers

Last updated 4 years ago

Was this helpful?