Cited by 422Distributed and Parallel Computing SystemsCloud Computing and Resource ManagementParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multi-resource packing for cluster schedulers

Open access
Grandl, Robert, Ananthanarayanan, Ganesh, Kandula, Srikanth, Rao, Sriram, Akella, Aditya·2014·Proceedings of the 2014 ACM conference on SIGCOMM

Abstract

Tasks in modern data parallel clusters have highly diverse resource requirements, along CPU, memory, disk and network. Any of these resources may become bottlenecks and hence, the likelihood of wasting resources due to fragmentation is now larger. Today's schedulers do not explicitly reduce fragmentation. Worse, since they only allocate cores and memory, the resources that they ignore (disk and network) can be over-allocated leading to interference, failures and hogging of cores or memory that could have been used by other tasks. We present Tetris, a cluster scheduler that packs, i.e., matches multi-resource task requirements with resource availabilities of machines so as to increase cluster efficiency (makespan). Further, Tetris uses an analog of shortest-running-time-first to trade-off cluster efficiency for speeding up individual jobs. Tetris' packing heuristics seamlessly work alongside a large class of fairness policies. Trace-driven simulations and deployment of our prototype on a 250 node cluster shows median gains of 30% in job completion time while achieving nearly perfect fairness.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2619239.2626334

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Grandl, R., Ananthanarayanan, G., Kandula, S., Rao, S., & Akella, A.
Affiliations
Microsoft (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2014 ACM conference on SIGCOMM
Publisher
ACM
Published
2014-08-17
Pages
455-466
OpenAlex
W2133569115
Cited by
421
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 2
FWCI
28.55
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM SIGCOMM Conference (SIGCOMM) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1302041, 1139158, 1040757)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Distributed and Parallel Computing Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Computing and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Parallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Keywords
cluster scheduling, resource fragmentation, makespan, job completion time

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review