惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
G
Google Developers Blog
S
SegmentFault 最新的问题
Microsoft Security Blog
Microsoft Security Blog
J
Java Code Geeks
罗磊的独立博客
H
Hackread – Cybersecurity News, Data Breaches, AI and More
量子位
P
Proofpoint News Feed
博客园 - 【当耐特】
MongoDB | Blog
MongoDB | Blog
L
LangChain Blog
F
Fortinet All Blogs
C
Check Point Blog
博客园_首页
I
InfoQ
Jina AI
Jina AI
Blog — PlanetScale
Blog — PlanetScale
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
Engineering at Meta
Engineering at Meta
美团技术团队
Vercel News
Vercel News
Apple Machine Learning Research
Apple Machine Learning Research

cs.DC updates on arXiv.org

DUAL-BLADE: Dual-Path NVMe-Direct KV-Cache Offloading for Edge LLM Inference Progressive Semantic Communication for Efficient Edge-Cloud Vision-Language Models Efficient, VRAM-Constrained xLM Inference on Clients Folding Tensor and Sequence Parallelism for Memory-Efficient Transformer Training & Inference DORA: A Scalable Asynchronous Reinforcement Learning System for Language Model Training AMMA: A Multi-Chiplet Memory-Centric Architecture for Low-Latency 1M Context Attention Serving RaMP: Runtime-Aware Megakernel Polymorphism for Mixture-of-Experts Spark Policy Toolkit: Semantic Contracts and Scalable Execution for Policy Learning in Spark Internet of Everything in the 6G Era: Paradigms, Enablers, Potentials and Future Directions PolyKV: A Shared Asymmetrically-Compressed KV Cache Pool for Multi-Agent LLM Inference A Survey on Split Learning for LLM Fine-Tuning: Models, Systems, and Privacy Optimizations ITAS: A Multi-Agent Architecture for LLM-Based Intelligent Tutoring Latency and Cost of Multi-Agent Intelligent Tutoring at Scale TACO: Efficient Communication Compression of Intermediate Tensors for Scalable Tensor-Parallel LLM Training FreeScale: Distributed Training for Sequence Recommendation Models with Minimal Scaling Cost CommFuse: Hiding Tail Latency via Communication Decomposition and Fusion for Distributed LLM Training A Taxonomy and Resolution Strategy for Client-Level Disagreements in Federated Learning Usable Agent Discovery for Decentralized AI Systems Cloud to Edge: Benchmarking LLM Inference On Hardware-Accelerated Single-Board Computers Data-Free Contribution Estimation in Federated Learning using Gradient von Neumann Entropy Shard the Gradient, Scale the Model: Serverless Federated Aggregation via Gradient Partitioning Promoting Simple Agents: Ensemble Methods for Event-Log Prediction GraphLeap: Decoupling Graph Construction and Convolution for Vision GNN Acceleration on FPGA AGNT2: Autonomous Agent Economies on Interaction-Optimized Layer 2 Infrastructure FedSIR: Spectral Client Identification and Relabeling for Federated Learning with Noisy Labels Stream-CQSA: Avoiding Out-of-Memory in Attention Computation via Flexible Workload Scheduling A Delta-Aware Orchestration Framework for Scalable Multi-Agent Edge Computing Federated Learning over Blockchain-Enabled Cloud Infrastructure Optimal Routing for Federated Learning over Dynamic Satellite Networks: Tractable or Not? Sherpa.ai Privacy-Preserving Multi-Party Entity Alignment without Intersection Disclosure for Noisy Identifiers
Comparisons of Algorithms in Big Data Processing
Amirali Daghighi, Jim Q. Chen · 2020-04-14 · via cs.DC updates on arXiv.org

Parallel computing is the fundamental base for MapReduce framework in Hadoop. Each data chunk is replicated over 3 servers for increasing availability of data and decreasing probability of data loss. Hence, the 3 servers that have Map task stored on their disk are fastest servers to process them, which are called local servers. All servers in the same rack as local servers are called rack-local servers that are slower than local servers since data chunk associated with Map task should be fetched through top of the rack switch. All other servers are called remote servers that are slowest servers since they need to fetch data from a local server in another rack, so data should be transmitted through at least 2 top of rack switches and a core switch. Note that number of switches in path of data transfer depends on internal network structure of data centers. The First-In-First-Out (FIFO) and Hadoop Fair Scheduler (HFS) algorithms do not take rack structure of data centers into account, so they are known to not be heavy-traffic delay optimal or even throughput optimal. The recent advances on scheduling for data centers considering rack structure of them and heterogeneity of servers resulted in state-of-the-art Balanced-PANDAS algorithm that outperforms classic MaxWeight algorithm. In both Balanced-PANDAS and MaxWeight algorithms, processing rate of local, rack-local, and remote servers are assumed to be known. However, with the change of traffic over time in addition to estimation errors of processing rates, it is not realistic to consider processing rates to be known. In this work, we study robustness of Balanced-PANDAS and MaxWeight algorithms in terms of inaccurate estimations of processing rates. We observe that Balanced-PANDAS is not as sensitive as MaxWeight on the accuracy of processing rates, making it more appealing to use in data centers.