text: It is well known that size-based scheduling policies, which take into account job size (i.e., the time it takes to run them), can perform very desirably in terms of both response time and fairness. Unfortunately, the requirement of knowing a priori the exact job size is a major obstacle which is frequently insurmountable in practice. Often, it is possible to get a coarse estimation of job size, but unfortunately analytical results with inexact job sizes are challenging to obtain, and simulation-based studies show that several size-based algorithm are severely impacted by job estimation errors. For example, Shortest Remaining Processing Time (SRPT), which yields optimal mean sojourn time when job sizes are known exactly, can drastically underperform when it is fed inexact job sizes. Some algorithms have been proposed to better handle size estimation errors, but they are somewhat complex and this makes their analysis challenging. We consider Shortest Processing Time (SPT), a simplification of SRPT that skips the update of "remaining" job size and results in a preemptive algorithm that simply schedules the job with the shortest estimated processing time. When job size is inexact, SPT performs comparably to the best known algorithms in the presence of errors, while being definitely simpler. In this work, SPT is evaluated through simulation, showing near-optimal performance in many cases, with the hope that its simplicity can open the way to analytical evaluation even when inexact inputs are considered.
  @cite_31: Size-based schedulers have very desirable performance properties: optimal or near-optimal response time can be coupled with strong fairness. Despite this, however, such systems are rarely implemented in practical settings, because they require knowing a priori the amount of work needed to complete jobs: this assumption is difficult to satisfy in concrete systems. It is definitely more likely to inform the system with an estimate of the job sizes, but existing studies point to somewhat pessimistic results if size-based policies use imprecise job size estimations. We take the goal of designing scheduling policies that explicitly deal with inexact job sizes . First, we prove that, in the absence of errors, it is always possible to improve any scheduling policy by designing a size-based one that dominates it: in the new policy, no jobs will complete later than in the original one. Unfortunately, size-based schedulers can perform badly with inexact job size information when job sizes are heavily skewed; we show that this issue, and the pessimistic results shown in the literature, are due to problematic behavior when large jobs are underestimated. Once the problem is identified, it is possible to amend size-based schedulers to solve the issue. We generalize FSP—a fair and efficient size-based scheduling policy—to solve the problem highlighted above; in addition, our solution deals with different job weights (that can be assigned to a job independently from its size). We provide an efficient implementation of the resulting protocol, which we call Practical Size-Based Scheduler (PSBS). Through simulations evaluated on synthetic and real workloads, we show that PSBS has near-optimal performance in a large variety of cases with inaccurate size information, that it performs fairly and that it handles job weights correctly. We believe that this work shows that PSBS is indeed pratical, and we maintain that it could inspire the design of schedulers in a wide array of real-world use cases.
  @cite_4: 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.
  @cite_11: When scheduling single server systems, Shortest Remaining Processing Time (SRPT) minimizes the number of jobs in the system at every point in time. However, a major limitation of SRPT is that it requires job processing times a priori. In practice, it is likely that only estimates of job processing times are available. This paper proposes a policy that schedules jobs with estimated job processing times. The proposed Modified Comparison Splitting Scheduling (MCSS) policy is compared to SRPT when scheduling both single and multi-server systems. In the single server system we observe from simulations that the proposed scheduling policy provides robustness that is crucial for achieving good performance. In contrast, in a multi-server system we observe that robustness to estimation errors is not dependent on the scheduling policy. However, as the number of servers grows, SRPT becomes preferable.
summary: were the first to consider estimation errors for size-based scheduling, and observed that existing algorithms perform well only when job sizes were rather accurately estimated. Further work @cite_4 @cite_31 has shown that most problems happen when the job size distribution is skewed and large jobs' sizes are under-estimated: in that case, these jobs eventually reach a very high priority and are not preempted when smaller jobs arrive, clogging the system. PSBS @cite_31 () and MCSS @cite_11 () are proposals that perform better on estimated job sizes; in both are evaluated and compared to SPT.