This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Guidelines for Scheduling Some Common Computation-Dags for Internet-Based Computing
April 2005 (vol. 54 no. 4)
pp. 428-438
ASCII Text
x 
 
Arnold L. Rosenberg, Matthew Yurkewych, "Guidelines for Scheduling Some Common Computation-Dags for Internet-Based Computing," IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 428-438, April, 2005.
 
 
BibTex
x
 
@article{ 10.1109/TC.2005.65,
author = {Arnold L. Rosenberg and Matthew Yurkewych},
title = {Guidelines for Scheduling Some Common Computation-Dags for Internet-Based Computing},
journal ={IEEE Transactions on Computers},
volume = {54},
number = {4},
issn = {0018-9340},
year = {2005},
pages = {428-438},
doi = {http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/TC.2005.65},
publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
address = {Los Alamitos, CA, USA},
}
 
 
RefWorks Procite/RefMan/Endnote
x 
 
TY - JOUR
JO - IEEE Transactions on Computers
TI - Guidelines for Scheduling Some Common Computation-Dags for Internet-Based Computing
IS - 4
SN - 0018-9340
SP428
EP438
EPD - 428-438
A1 - Arnold L. Rosenberg,
A1 - Matthew Yurkewych,
PY - 2005
KW - Internet-based computing
KW - grid computing
KW - global computing
KW - Web computing
KW - scheduling
KW - reduction computations
KW - convolutional computations
KW - mesh-structured computations
KW - tree-structured computations.
VL - 54
JA - IEEE Transactions on Computers
ER -
 
A "pebble game” is developed to model the process of scheduling computation-dags for Internet-based computing (IC, for short). Strategies are derived for scheduling three common, significant families of such dags for IC: reduction-meshes, which represent (the intertask dependencies of) computations that can be performed by "up-sweeps” of meshes; reduction-trees, which represent "accumulative” computations that can be performed by "up-sweeps” of trees; and FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) dags, which represent a large variety of convolutional computations. Two criteria are used to assess the quality of a schedule: its memory requirements and its rate of producing tasks that are eligible for allocation to remote clients. These criteria are important because of, respectively, the typically enormous sizes of IC computations and the typical temporal unpredictability of remote clients in IC. In particular, a high production rate of eligible tasks decreases a computation's vulnerability to the gridlock that can occur when a computation stalls pending the return of intermediate results by remote clients. Under idealized assumptions, the schedules derived are optimal in the rate of producing eligible tasks and are either exactly or approximately optimal in memory requirements.

[1] K. Aberer and Z. Despotovic, “Managing Trust in a Peer-2-Peer Information System,” Proc. 10th Intl Conf. Information and Knowledge Management, 2001.
[2] V.E. Beneš, “Optimal Rearrangeable Multistage Connecting Networks,” Bell System Technical J., vol. 43, pp. 1641-1656, 1964.
[3] S.N. Bhatt, F.R.K. Chung, F.T. Leighton, and A.L. Rosenberg, “Scheduling Tree-Dags Using FIFO Queues: A Control-Memory Tradeoff,” J. Parallel and Distributed Computing, vol. 33, pp. 55-68, 1996.
[4] S.N. Bhatt, F.R.K. Chung, J.-W. Hong, F.T. Leighton, B. Obrenić, A.L. Rosenberg, and E.J. Schwabe, “Optimal Emulations by Butterfly-Like Networks,” J. ACM, vol. 43, pp. 293-330, 1996.
[5] R. Buyya, D. Abramson, and J. Giddy, “A Case for Economy Grid Architecture for Service Oriented Grid Computing,” Proc. 10th Heterogeneous Computing Workshop, 2001.
[6] W. Cirne and K. Marzullo, “The Computational Co-Op: Gathering Clusters into a Metacomputer,” Proc. 13th Int'l Parallel Processing Symp., pp. 160-166, 1999.
[7] S.A. Cook, “An Observation on Time-Storage Tradeoff,” J. Computer Systems and Sciences, vol. 9, pp. 308-316, 1974.
[8] T.H. Cormen, C.E. Leiserson, R.L. Rivest, and C. Stein, Introduction to Algorithms, second ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1999.
[9] The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure, I. Foster and C. Kesselman, eds. San Francisco: Morgan-Kaufmann, 1999.
[10] I. Foster, C. Kesselman, and S. Tuecke, “The Anatomy of the Grid: Enabling Scalable Virtual Organizations,” Int'l J. Supercomputer Applications, 2001.
[11] L.-X. Gao, A.L. Rosenberg, and R.K. Sitaraman, “Optimal Clustering of Tree-Sweep Computations for High-Latency Parallel Environments,” IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 10, pp. 813-824, 1999.
[12] M.R. Garey, R.L. Graham, D.S. Johnson, and D.E. Knuth, “Complexity Results for Bandwidth Minimization,” SIAM J. Applied Math., vol. 34, pp. 477-495, 1978.
[13] A. Gerasoulis and T. Yang, “A Comparison of Clustering Heuristics for Scheduling Dags on Multiprocessors,” J. Parallel and Distributed Computing, vol. 16, pp. 276-291, 1992.
[14] P. Golle and I. Mironov, “Uncheatable Distributed Computations,” Proc. RSA Conf. 2001 (Cryptographers' Track), 2001.
[15] L. He, Z. Han, H. Jin, L. Pan, and S. Li, “DAG-Based Parallel Real Time Task Scheduling Algorithm on a Cluster,” Proc. Int'l Conf. Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applications (PDPTA 2000), pp. 437-443, 2000.
[16] J.-W. Hong and H.T. Kung, “I/O Complexity: The Red-Blue Pebble Game,” Proc. 13th ACM Symp. Theory of Computing, pp. 326-333, 1981.
[17] The Intel Philanthropic Peer-to-Peer program. www.intel.comcure, 2001.
[18] A. Jakoby and R. Reischuk, “The Complexity of Scheduling Problems with Communication Delays for Trees,” Proc. Scandinavian Workshop Algorithmic Theory, pp. 163-177, 1992.
[19] R.M. Karp, A. Sahay, E. Santos, and K.E. Schauser, “Optimal Broadcast and Summation in the logP Model,” Proc. Fifth ACM Symp. Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, pp. 142-153, 1993.
[20] D. Kondo, H. Casanova, E. Wing, and F. Berman, “Models and Scheduling Guidelines for Global Computing Applications,” Proc. Int'l Parallel and Distributed Processing Symp. (IPDPS '02), 2002.
[21] E. Korpela, D. Werthimer, D. Anderson, J. Cobb, and M. Lebofsky, “SETI@home: Massively Distributed Computing for SETI,” Computing in Science and Eng., P.F. Dubois, ed., Los Alamitos, Calif.: IEEE CS Press, 2000.
[22] J.K. Lenstra, M. Veldhorst, and B. Veltman, “The Complexity of Scheduling Trees with Communication Delays,” J. Algorithms, vol. 20, pp. 157-173, 1996.
[23] B.M. Maggs and R.K. Sitaraman, “Simple Algorithms for Routing on Butterfly Networks with Bounded Queues,” SIAM J. Computing, vol. 28, pp. 984-1004, 1999.
[24] The Olson Laboratory Fight AIDS@Home Project, www.fightaids athome.org, 2001.
[25] M.S. Paterson and C.E. Hewitt, “Comparative Schematology,” Proc. Project MAC Conf. Concurrent Systems and Parallel Computation, pp. 119-127, 1970.
[26] A.G. Ranade, “Optimal Speedup for Backtrack Search on a Butterfly Network,” Math. Systems Theory, vol. 27, pp. 85-101, 1994.
[27] A.L. Rosenberg, “Accountable Web-Computing,” IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 14, pp. 97-106, 2003.
[28] A.L. Rosenberg, “On Scheduling Mesh-Structured Computations for Internet-Based Computing,” IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 53, pp. 1176-1186, 2004.
[29] A.L. Rosenberg and I.H. Sudborough, “Bandwidth and Pebbling,” Computing, vol. 31, pp. 115-139, 1983.
[30] X.-H. Sun and M. Wu, “GHS: A Performance Prediction and Task Scheduling System for Grid Computing,” Proc. IEEE Int'l Parallel and Distributed Processing Symp., 2003.

Index Terms:
Internet-based computing, grid computing, global computing, Web computing, scheduling, reduction computations, convolutional computations, mesh-structured computations, tree-structured computations.
Citation:
Arnold L. Rosenberg, Matthew Yurkewych, "Guidelines for Scheduling Some Common Computation-Dags for Internet-Based Computing," IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 428-438, April 2005, doi:10.1109/TC.2005.65
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.