Chapter 6 Performance Evaluation
6.2 Evaluation under Different Types of Fork-Join Structures
In this section we classify the workflows of fork-join structure into four types and evaluate the proposed clustering approaches under each type of workflows accordingly.
Figure 6.1 is an example of the first type of workflows where the edges connecting to the fork node have larger communication costs than the edges pointing to the join node. Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3 show the performance evaluation of the proposed clustering approaches with the first type of workflows. The performance was measured by the reduction of the average makespan of all workflows, compared to the PCH approach [10]. The experimental results indicate that the proposed CPCH, SLECPCH and SCCCPCH schemes outperforms PCH significantly, up to 3% performance improvement.
Figure
Figure 6.2: Performance with the first type of workflows of single
0 1 2 3 4 5
CPCH 4.18
Performance improvement in makespan
Figure 6.1: First type of workflows
Performance with the first type of workflows of single-level fork
CPCH SLECPCH SCCCPCH 4.18
1.75
2.53
Single-level fork-join
level fork-join
Figure 6.3: Performance with the first type of workf
Figure 6.4 is an example of the second type of workflows where the edges connecting to the join node have larger communication costs than the edges starting from the fork node.
Figure 6.5 and Figure 6.6 show the performance evaluation of the approaches with the second type of workflows.
proposed CPCH, SLECPCH and SCCCPCH schemes outperforms PCH significantly, up to 13% performance improvement
of workflows, compared to the first type of workflows.
Figure
Performance with the first type of workflows of double-level fork
Figure 6.4 is an example of the second type of workflows where the edges connecting to the join node have larger communication costs than the edges starting from the fork node.
6.5 and Figure 6.6 show the performance evaluation of the proposed approaches with the second type of workflows. The experimental results
SLECPCH and SCCCPCH schemes outperforms PCH significantly, up to ce improvement. A larger performance improvement is achieved with this type of workflows, compared to the first type of workflows.
Figure 6.4: Second type of workflows
CPCH SLECPCH SCCCPCH Figure 6.4 is an example of the second type of workflows where the edges connecting to the join node have larger communication costs than the edges starting from the fork node.
proposed clustering results show that the SLECPCH and SCCCPCH schemes outperforms PCH significantly, up to . A larger performance improvement is achieved with this type
Figure 6.5: Performance
Figure 6.6: Performance with the second type of workflows of double
Figure 6.7 shows an example of the third type of workflows where the edges on the upper path between the fork and join nodes have larger communication costs than the edges on the lower path. Figure 6.8 and Figure 6.9 show the performance evaluation of the
0
with the second type of workflows of single
-Performance with the second type of workflows of
double-Figure 6.7 shows an example of the third type of workflows where the edges on the upper path between the fork and join nodes have larger communication costs than the edges
6.8 and Figure 6.9 show the performance evaluation of the
CPCH SLECPCH SCCCPCH upper path between the fork and join nodes have larger communication costs than the edges 6.8 and Figure 6.9 show the performance evaluation of the proposed
clustering approaches with the third type of workflows.
the proposed CPCH, SLECPCH and SCCCPCH schemes outperforms PCH significantly, up to 12% performance improvement
superiority of the three clustering
Figure
Figure 6.8: Performance with the third type of
0
clustering approaches with the third type of workflows. The experimental
SLECPCH and SCCCPCH schemes outperforms PCH significantly, up performance improvement. Unlike the previous two types of workfl
superiority of the three clustering approaching remains the same in these two figures.
Figure 6.7: Third type of workflows
Performance with the third type of workflows of single-level fork
CPCH SLECPCH SCCCPCH
13.9 14.12
17.97
Single-level fork-join
results indicate that SLECPCH and SCCCPCH schemes outperforms PCH significantly, up . Unlike the previous two types of workflows, the relative
s the same in these two figures.
level fork-join
Figure 6.9: Performance with the third type of workflows of double
Finally, Figure 6.10 is an example of the fourth type of workflows where the edges on the lower path between the fork and join nodes have larger communication costs than the edges on the upper path. Figure
proposed clustering approaches with the fourth type of workflows.
indicate that the proposed CPCH,
significantly, up to 11% performance improvement clustering approaching remain
Performance with the third type of workflows of double-level fork
Finally, Figure 6.10 is an example of the fourth type of workflows where the edges on een the fork and join nodes have larger communication costs than the Figure 6.11 and Figure 6.12 show the performance evaluation of the clustering approaches with the fourth type of workflows. The experimental
that the proposed CPCH, SLECPCH and SCCCPCH schemes outperforms PCH performance improvement. Again, the relative superiority of the three remains the same in these two figures.
Figure 6.10: Fourth type of workflows
CPCH SLECPCH SCCCPCH
25.85 26.02
29.24
Double -level fork-join
level fork-join Finally, Figure 6.10 is an example of the fourth type of workflows where the edges on
een the fork and join nodes have larger communication costs than the 6.11 and Figure 6.12 show the performance evaluation of the experimental results SLECPCH and SCCCPCH schemes outperforms PCH . Again, the relative superiority of the three
Figure 6.11: Performance with the fourth type of workflows of single
Figure 6.12: Performance with the fourth type of