Subject: CCPE Portal C552 From: Anand Natrajan Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:31:44 -0400 (EDT) To: gcf@indiana.edu X-UIDL: 7c97c53b301a0000 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: by mailer.csit.fsu.edu (mbox gcfpc) (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Sun Oct 14 17:42:35 2001) X-From_: fox@mailer.csit.fsu.edu Sun Oct 14 17:41:42 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gcfpc@csit.fsu.edu Received: from dirac.csit.fsu.edu (dirac.csit.fsu.edu [144.174.128.44]) by mailer.csit.fsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8220123A07 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 17:41:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by dirac.csit.fsu.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7) id RAA92338; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 17:41:41 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Message-Id: <200110142141.RAA92338@dirac.csit.fsu.edu> Replied: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:40:17 -0400 Replied: Anand Natrajan Delivered-To: fox@csit.fsu.edu Received: from fins.uits.indiana.edu (unknown [129.79.6.185]) by mailer.csit.fsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F9623AC2 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:32:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ares.cs.Virginia.EDU (ares.cs.Virginia.EDU [128.143.137.19]) by fins.uits.indiana.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1/IUPO) with ESMTP id f8KIVPo17948 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 13:31:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from viper.cs.Virginia.EDU (viper.cs.Virginia.EDU [128.143.137.17]) by ares.cs.Virginia.EDU (8.9.2/8.9.2/UVACS-2000040300) with ESMTP id OAA02990 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:31:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (an4m@localhost) by viper.cs.Virginia.EDU (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA24588 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:31:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: viper.cs.Virginia.EDU: an4m owned process doing -bs Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-To: Geoffrey Fox Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 17:41:41 -0400 Resent-From: Geoffrey Fox CandC:PandE Referee Report Form *********************************************** Electronic Transimission to gcf@indiana.edu strongly preferred. Referees Home Page: http://aspen.csit.fsu.edu/CandCPandE/ Email gcf@indiana.edu for URL of full paper to be reviewed. WILEY Journal Home Page John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Baffins Lane, Chichester West Sussex, PO19 1UD, England Telephone: (01243) 779777 Fax: (01243) 770379 REFEREE'S REPORT Concurrency and Computation:Practice and Experience ********** A: General Information Please return to: Geoffrey C. Fox Electronically Preferred gcf@indiana.edu Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience Computer Science Department 228 Lindley Hall Bloomington Indiana 47405 Office Phone 8128567977(Lab), 8128553788(CS) but best is cell phone 3152546387 FAX 8128567972 Please fill in Summary Conclusions (Sec. C) and details as appropriate in Secs. D, E and F. B: Refereeing Philosophy We encourage a broad range of readers and contributors. Please judge papers on their technical merit and separate comments on this from those on style and approach. Keep in mind the strong practical orientation that we are trying to give the journal. Note that the forms attached provide separate paper for comments that you wish only the editor to see and those that both the editor and author receive. Your identity will of course not be revealed to the author. C: Paper and Referee Metadata Paper Number C552: Date: Thu Sep 20 14:31:13 EDT 2001 Paper Title: Economics Paradigm for Resource Management and Scheduling in Grid Computing Author(s): Rajkumar Buyya, David Abramson, Jonathan Giddy, Heinz Stockinger Referee: Anand Natrajan Address: Dept. of Comp. Sc., Univ. of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904 Referee Recommendations. Please indicate overall recommendations here, and details in following sections. REJECT D: Referee Comments (For Editor Only) ------------------------------------ The paper is ill-thought in concept and presentation. After wading through several verbose paragraphs, it is clear to me that the authors are stretching a metaphor too far. E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor) ------------------------------ This paper presents an economic model for evaluating which jobs run on which resources. The paper is significantly flawed in several respects. First, the topic. I think grid systems haven't achieved the maturity where we can assign costs to resources and have users buy or trade them. We're still grappling with technical and organisational issues in grids; economic issues are distant. However, perhaps it is forward-thinking to talk about economic issues already, so I don't view this concern as a major issue. Second, the metaphors. There is a key difference between computing resources and the stock market model that the authors present in several sections. Computing resources are bought and sold so that they can be used; stocks are bought and sold for future purchasing and selling. In that respect, computing resources are more like groceries or electricity. It doesn't make sense to talk about options, futures and trading. Third, the scale. The authors seem to have ignored all issues pertaining to the scale of transactions when there are several thousand hosts and several hundred users. Bargaining or horse-trading between all these entities can become a communications nightmare. Already a grid scheduler can become a hotspot; with the additional burden of conducting auctions, it can miss a high percentage of deadlines. Fourth, the implementation. It's not clear that the section on Nimrod/G actually contributes much to the authors' main thesis in the preceding sections. The single experiment they conducted is hardly satisfactory because there is no baseline comparison. From a scientific viewpoint, I could not duplicate that experiment if I had their resources because they haven't given me all the information about the experiment. I have no hesitation in rejecting this paper for publication. F: Presentation Changes The paper is verbose, extremely so. Presenting definitions of well-known terms like "economics", "monopoly" and "oligopoly" is patronising to readers. Repeating the ideas of resources being offered and purchased is annoying. There are spelling mistakes ("Cutomised") and grammatical errors (unbound referrents). Citations are treated as first-class language entities, which they are not. .