Subject: Latest version [Fwd: Updated paper: Re: GCE Special Issue of CCPE: C552] From: Rajkumar Buyya Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 20:58:50 +1100 To: gcf@indiana.edu X-UIDL: ofY!!9`o!!-=I"!jT_"! X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Return-Path: Received: from grids.ucs.indiana.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grids.ucs.indiana.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g011Bh618997 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 20:11:43 -0500 (EST) Resent-Message-Id: <200201010111.g011Bh618997@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> Replied: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 07:54:28 -0500 Replied: Rajkumar Buyya Delivery-Date: Mon Dec 24 04:54:04 2001 Received: from mask.uits.indiana.edu (mask.uits.indiana.edu [129.79.6.184]) by grids.ucs.indiana.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBO9s3607665 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 04:54:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from nexus.csse.monash.edu.au (nexus.csse.monash.edu.au [130.194.226.4]) by mask.uits.indiana.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1/IUPO) with ESMTP id fBO9oFq31052 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 04:50:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from csse.monash.edu.au (charon.csse.monash.edu.au [130.194.224.132]) by nexus.csse.monash.edu.au (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBO9rt908308 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 20:53:55 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <3C26FC5A.1590EC39@csse.monash.edu.au> Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Australia X-Sender: "Rajkumar Buyya" <@nexus.csse.monash.edu.au> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD monwin/020 (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------73EE1B9328BC8E71BE16B8DB" Resent-To: ccpe Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 20:11:42 -0500 Resent-From: Geoffrey Charles Fox X-UIDL: ofY!!9`o!!-=I"!jT_"! Hello Geoffrey: My colleagues have proof read updated version of the paper that I sent you last week. I have incorporated their comments etc. and enclosed the latest version along with this email. Can you please use this version instead of earlier version. Thanks for your understanding. Raj -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Updated paper: Re: Referee Reports on GCE Special Issue of CCPE: C552 Dear Geoffrey: The updated paper details are: > a) PDF version of revised paper see attached pdf file. > b) Text Word or PDF comment on how referees' comments addressed -------------------------- 1. We have presented an earlier version in a SPIE conference and we retained full rights to publish the same or Extended paper in Journal. Foe new results included in the paper and extensions, please see below: 2. The revised version has been substantially updated and experimental results are completely brand new. Most review comments have been addressed suitably in the context of paper. 3. Added more information on Related Computational Economy driven System. Added a new Table 1. 4. Economic models have been suitably updated with more emphasis on their realization architecture in Grid computing environments. 5. Double Auction model has been included since this has high potential for Grid computing. In fact, agents frameworks for this model are available. 6. Section 5 has been updated with focus on Computational Economy. 7. Section 6 is completely NEW. It contains full information on Scheduling Experiment, which can be repeated with given data. I have logs of all scheduling data and happy to place them on web and cite its location in the paper, if required. 8. I can add aggregated graphs of Figures 15 and 16 [Time Optimization[ and Figures 19 and 20 to the paper, if required. -------------------------- I hope revised paper with completely new Scheduling Results of multiple experiments address concerns raised by reviewers. Please let me know your comments and suggestions. Sorry for delayed submission. BTW, my colleagues are proof reading the paper and by Monday I will be fixing any grammatical errors present in the paper. Thank you very much for your support. Raj > c) In spite of what journal says, I do not need at this stage > copyright release. You will send this directly to Wiley in > England after they contact you. > > Please put in subject of EMAIL > CCPE Portal Cabc > where Cabc number of your paper > Thank you for your contribution to this excellent special issue > > Referee 1 ******************************************* > > E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor) > The paper describes a computational economy framework for resource allocation and for > regulating supply and demand in Grid computing environments. The paper is well written and > the ideas seem promising especially when it is applied to an environment like Internet. The > material of the paper has appeared in many other publications. It is very difficult for me > to see what is new in this draft. > > Referee 2 ******************************************* > > This is an interesting forward looking paper which I would recommend > for publication after significant revision. > The economic model for computing resources is important and already > has had major impact on computer technology. For instance the trend to > using distributed computers (departmental machines) is partly due to > economic forces. Centralized Systems are difficult to manage > efficiently as if you charge then the machine is underutilized while > if any time is given away then it is saturated -- such tradeoffs > (and avoiding the tragedy of the commons with free time) is much easier > in small peer communities (such as departments) > > I see the difference between time and cost optimized scheduling as > important and needing further research > > That said, I found the paper disappointing. There was little discussion > of P2P concepts (trust, digital cash, reputation) but rather a > slightly superficial (IMHO) discussion of analogies with the real > world in section 3. Systems like Mojo Nation were given the briefest > of mention even though introduction (correctly) gave prominence to > P2P area. > > Further I didn't really see much in sections 5 and 6 describing > the technology and policy behind Grid economy based scheduling. > Note "trust" and "reputation" are critical -- they are basis of peer review > used in time allocation on most large computers. > Section 6 needs expansion -- one experiment is insufficient to make a point > > Referee 3 ******************************************* > > 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. > > 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. > > Referee 3 ******************************************* > > -- > : > : Geoffrey Fox gcf@indiana.edu FAX 8128567972 > : Phones Cell 315-254-6387 Home 8123239196 Lab 8128567977 CS 8128553788 -- Best regards, Raj ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rajkumar Buyya School of Computer Science and Software Engineering Monash University, C5.41, Caulfield Campus Melbourne, VIC 3145, Australia Phone: +61-3-9903 1969 (office); +61-3-9571 3629 (home) Fax: +61-3-9903 2863; eFax: +1-801-720-9272 Email: rajkumar@buyya.com | rajkumar@csse.monash.edu.au URL: http://www.buyya.com | http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~rajkumar ------------------------------------------------------------------------