Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2608.13824

Balancing Workload Performance and Slurm Stress: Four Nextflow Deployment Strategies

Abstract

Wide Nextflow fan-outs on shared Slurm clusters can submit tens of thousands of short tasks. Deployment settings route them through individual jobs, arrays, or nested schedulers inside enclosing allocations. These settings determine workflow turnaround and RPC volume, a shared cost that can degrade scheduler responsiveness. Existing comparisons evaluate whole workflow systems, while per-task queueing metrics cannot span architectures that dispatch inside existing allocations. We contribute a reproducible measurement protocol and benchmark harness. A clean-start clock begins before backend startup or allocation requests, placing architecturally different backends on a common time axis. Per-user Slurm sdiag counters attribute request count as the primary RPC demand measure and controller processing time as sensitivity context, separate from cluster-wide state. We apply the method to Slurm native dispatch, Slurm job arrays, HyperQueue, and Flux on the shared ASU Phoenix production cluster and a single-user Dev cluster. On Phoenix, every aggregation strategy improves both objectives relative to native dispatch; Flux has the lowest RPC demand, while HyperQueue's fastest median walltime is not stable across replicates. On Dev, arrays and Flux improve walltime, while HyperQueue trades the lowest RPC demand for the slowest completion. The method lets an HPC site compare deployment strategies using both user-visible performance and scheduler impact, then select the fastest strategy within its own RPC-demand limit.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Nil Tianchen Mu, William Dizon, Glen Otero, Torey Battelle. 2026-08-19. Balancing Workload Performance and Slurm Stress: Four Nextflow Deployment Strategies. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13824

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Reforge: Low-Latency Distributed GNN Serving with Selective Embedding Recomputation

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have been widely adopted for their ability to compute expressive node representations in graph datasets. However, serving GNNs on large graphs is challenging due to the high communication, computation, and memory overheads of constructing and executing computation graphs, which represent information flow across large neighborhoods. Existing approximation techniques in training can mitigate the overheads but, in serving, still lead to high latency and/or accuracy loss. To this end, we propose Reforge, a system that enables low-latency GNN serving for large graphs with minimal accuracy loss through two key ideas. First, Reforge employs selective recomputation of precomputed embeddings, which allows for reusing precomputed computation subgraphs while selectively recomputing a small fraction to minimize accuracy loss. Second, we develop computation graph parallelism, which reduces communication overhead by parallelizing the creation and execution of computation graphs across machines. Our evaluation with large graph datasets and GNN models shows that Reforge significantly outperforms state-of-the-art techniques.

cs.DC

Agentic AI Workload Characteristics

Agentic AI shifts LLM serving from isolated prompt-generation requests to stateful, multi-turn executions that repeatedly invoke the model, call tools, and grow context over time. This paper characterizes ReAct-style agents from both the LLM-serving and tool-execution perspectives using an end-to-end tracing infrastructure across reasoning and non-reasoning Gemma and Qwen configurations on five agentic benchmarks. Our study shows that agentic workloads are not simply long-prompt workloads: with effective context caching, most input tokens are reused across turns, making execution decode-dominated while increasing dependence on long-lived KV-cache state. We also find that tool use has a clear temporal structure, with agents shifting from read/explore behavior early in execution to execute/write behavior later. These results show that efficient agentic serving must jointly manage repeated model re-entry, persistent context state, and workload-dependent tool behavior.

cs.DC

Byzantine Causal Reliable Broadcast (BCRB) with Constant-Size Message Metadata

Asynchronous Byzantine Reliable Broadcast (BRB) is a fundamental primitive that guarantees agreement and validity in distributed systems subject to Byzantine faults, but it lacks ordering guarantees. In this paper, we address Byzantine Causal Reliable Broadcast (BCRB), which builds on BRB to enforce causal message ordering. We present a novel BCRB protocol that decouples causal ordering from the BRB layer, achieving constant-size $\mathcal{O}(1)$ message metadata overhead and $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ communication word complexity as against $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$ communication word complexity of existing protocols; here $n$ is the number of processes. We present two variants of our protocol: a cryptographic version using a threshold encryption scheme and sequence gating, and its non-cryptographic version. In the cryptographic version, senders broadcast ciphertexts immediately, and decryption shares are piggybacked on out-of-band ACKs, preventing early decryption and front-running. In both versions, causal safety is achieved probabilistically. We evaluate the probability of causal safety violations using a random variable path analysis under independent exponential link delay distributions. We show that both variants satisfy liveness and the probability of weak safety violation is bounded by $\mathcal{O}(f^{-3}\cdot\ln^3 f)$, where $f$ is the upper bound on the number of Byzantine processes, and $f < n/3$ and $f=\mathcal{O}(n)$. Further, for the crypto version, we show that the probability of strong safety violation is bounded by $\mathcal{O}(f^{-1} \cdot \ln^2 f)$. We also show how to modify our two protocols to guarantee 100\% weak safety keeping $\mathcal{O}(1)$ message space overhead but with $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$ messages and $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$ communication word complexity.

cs.DC