Kürzung abgeschlossen
This commit is contained in:
parent
7db55f1279
commit
368b32d1db
|
@ -994,13 +994,11 @@ For the small post-processing job, which is executed many times, all algorithms
|
|||
For Job-M, the algorithms exhibit a different behavior.
|
||||
Job-L is tricky to analyze, because it is compute intense with only a single I/O phase at the beginning.
|
||||
Generally, the KS algorithm finds jobs with similar histograms which are not necessarily what we subjectively are looking for.
|
||||
|
||||
We found that the approach to compute similarity of a reference jobs to all jobs and ranking these based on their similarity was successful to find related jobs that we were interested in.
|
||||
We found that the approach to compute similarity of a reference jobs to all jobs and ranking these was successful to find related jobs that we were interested in.
|
||||
The Q-lev and Q-native work best according to our subjective qualitative analysis.
|
||||
Typically, a related job stems from the same user/group and may have a related job name but the approach was inclusive.
|
||||
However, all algorithms perform their task as intended.
|
||||
Typically, a related job stems from the same user/group and may have a related job name but the approach was able to find other jobs as well.
|
||||
The pre-processing of the algorithms and distance metrics differ leading to a different definition of similarity.
|
||||
The the data center support/user must define how to define similarity to select the algorithm that suits best.
|
||||
The data center support/user must define how to define similarity to select the algorithm that suits best.
|
||||
Another consideration could be to identify jobs that are found by all algorithms, i.e., jobs that meet a certain (rank) threshold for different algorithms.
|
||||
That would increase the likelihood that these jobs are very similar and what the user is looking for.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue