A comparison between mechanisms for sequential compute resource auctions

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

A comparison between mechanisms for sequential compute resource auctions

Full text

Pdf (247 KB)

Source

International Conference on Autonomous Agents archive
Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems table of contents

Hakodate, Japan

SESSION: Auctions and electronic markets table of contents

Pages: 1199 - 1201

Year of Publication: 2006

ISBN:1-59593-303-4

Author

Andrew Byde

HP Labs, Stoke Gifford, Bristol

Sponsors

IFMAS : The International Foundation for Multiagent Systems
ATAL : The International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages
SIGART: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 3, Downloads (12 Months): 30, Citation Count: 1

Additional Information:

abstract references cited by index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1160633.1160848 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

This paper describes simulations designed to test the relative efficiency of two different sequential auction mechanisms for allocating compute resources between users in a shared data-center. For each of two possible auction types we apply a genetic algorithm to a broad class of bidding strategies to determine a near-optimal bidding strategy for a specified auction type, and use statistics of the performance of these strategies to determine the most suitable auction type for this domain.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Brent N. Chun , David E. Culler, Market-based Proportional Resource Sharing for Clusters, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2000
	2	D. Ferguson, Y. Yemini, and C. Nikolau. Microeconomic algorithms for load balancing in distributed systems. In Proc. of the 8^th International Conference on Distributed Computer Systems, pages 491--499. IEEE, 1988.
	3	H. Labs. SE3D project. http://www.hpl.hp.com/SE3D.
	4	K. Lai, B. A. Huberman, and L. Fine. Tycoon: A distributed market-based resource allocation system, 2004.
	5	Daniel M. Reeves , Michael P. Wellman , Jeffrey K. MacKie-Mason , Anna Osepayshvili, Exploring bidding strategies for market-based scheduling, Decision Support Systems, v.39 n.1, p.67-85, March 2005 [doi>10.1016/j.dss.2004.08.014]
	6	Ion Stoica , Hussein M. Abdel-Wahab , Alex Pothen, A Microeconomic Scheduler for Parallel Computers, Proceedings of the Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, p.200-218, April 25, 1995
	7	Trading agent competition. http://www.sics.se/tac.
	8	Carl A. Waldspurger , Tad Hogg , Bernardo A. Huberman , Jeffrey O. Kephart , W. Scott Stornetta, Spawn: A Distributed Computational Economy, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.18 n.2, p.103-117, February 1992 [doi>10.1109/32.121753]