Best offers
Partners
The Games selection
violent :
More Mindless Violence
Basic shooting game, but still so powerful! Use the mouse to take aim and shoot at the little beasties before they get to you. Use Space to reload....
|
crazy :
Xiao Xiao 7
A great fight scene from the animation movies Xiao Xiao.
|
Sponsored links
- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (6) |
- Share
Open vs. Closed Systems
In the next step, Harchol-Balter looked at task dispatching in server farms, where routing becomes an important issue. For these large scale applications, it is very important to first think about the workload type that your system will be taking on. Her speech now dealt with the difference between open and closed systems. In an open system, your solution will be available to work on tasks that are very much predictable; think of a web server or web server farm. In such a case, it makes a lot of sense to analyze and determine the ideal scheduling and dispatching strategy in an effort to minimize response time and maximize performance. It is called an open system because there can be different tasks from various sources, and there will be different results. However, a closed system dispatches tasks that are less predictable, because they result from the results of prior workloads, and an analysis of tasks is used to determine further processing.
In the following example, a web server farm is used to create an environment in which incoming tasks are distributed to systems. All the servers operate based on preemptive processor sharing, just as most of the multitasking operating systems work today. The main question now is how to distribute the workload to the servers in an effort to get the shortest response times, and hence the best performance. In this example, the solution deciding on the routing policy (see image below) needs to be aware of the workload to be able to make a decision on the scheduling technique (see below).
A Poisson process, as used in this example, is a “stochastic process in which events occur continuously and independently of one another. A well-known example is radioactive decay of atoms.” (Text source: Wikipedia). HTTP requests are classified as Poisson processes. Will there be performance differences according to various scheduling techniques?
Task Scheduling Policies for Server Farms
Harchol-Balter discusses four possible task scheduling techniques:
- Random Incoming tasks are assigned to a random system with no other policy behind.
- Join-Shortest-Queue In this case, tasks are forwarded to the server that has the fewest jobs to process. This technique requires a prior analysis of the server system and usually also assumes a first-come, first-served policy.
- Least-Work-Left This is similar to join-shortest-queue, but actually considers the task that has to be processed. The systems with the least actual workload will receive the next jobs first. Here, jobs are typically ordered for dispatching by workload.
- Size Interval Splitting This approach distributes workload evenly to all available clients, which creates a good workload balance across your servers, but increases response time.
The entire topic of scheduling has been discussed for more than 40 years, and it is obvious that there are various strategies that may or may not be suitable for individual requirements. The most important parameter certainly is the workload itself, and a detailed analysis of closed as opposed to open systems. The selection of proper policies and hardware comes in a second step.





Yawn .. what a boring article.
Yawn .. what a boring article.
Sounds like a good place to talk about what you'd like to be reading from the Tom's crew. We're all ears =)
I am expecting you use that software as sample between 9800GTX and HD 4850 both are good contender
I am expecting you use that software as sample between 9800GTX and HD 4850 both are good contender
Unfortunately, probably not going to happen ;-)
Wouldn’t it be MORE fair to say that SPECviewperf is more like a cheat test that states that very crippled workstation cards are still faster than the vastly hardware superior “gaming” cards only due to driver restriction and more importantly, software optimizations?
If anything SPEC is one big Cheat tester, whose results you might as well plunge down the drain, since you aren’t going to get any useful info out of them.
To top that off, the test still uses OpenGL- just burry the darn thing. Mac users can complain all they want, but no self-respecting professional application has been recommending OGL for anything, but legacy for quite some time now. OpenGL is outdated for several years now. It’s both noticeably slower and has far lesser visual quality compared to DX 9.0c implementations.
I’m not sure about the rest of the SPEC family, but if SPECviewperf is any indication, its not looking good for them either.
I get that SPECheatTest can exist since many ignorant people still use “professional” cards and OpenGL, but why don’t you at least mention this in your article, or are you happy Quadro Mac users as well? Testing under a bell environment that proves that "professional" cards with 1/20 power of a current "gaming" card is still faster is just a self fulfilling prophecy. Who needs to see this propaganda? Who are workstation cards manufacturers trying to fool? The ignorant. How about you? Question directed at THG.
Both “SPECheatTest” and “Macs are not 200% more expensive, honest” articles have been an insult to the intelligence.
Thank you for reading.
Could anything be more further from the truth? How about black is actually white. Yeah, that about does it- barely.