An Experimental Performance Study Sample Clauses

An Experimental Performance Study. This study overlaps Task 1 and Task 2, as it may imply porting selected systems to Linux. Very often, a design with an extensive set of noble features end up with undesirable performance behaviors. Therefore, before making any commitments to which system to select based on the feature and architectural study, one should, when feasible, study the performance of candidate systems experimentally under workloads emulating real-life scenarios. This can be accomplished by developing a number of NSA benchmarking applications both sequentially in C and in parallel with C plus MPI. Using a controlled environment, such as a Beowulf System, instances of these applications can be generated and run on partitions of the Beowulf system, to emulate typical loading and operational scenarios, under the middleware to be tested. Appropriate performance instrumentation tools will be then used to monitor and measure key performance parameters. In our case, it turns out that such study is feasible for the following reasons: 1) many of the cited systems support Linux already [e.g., PBS, Condor, Mosix support Linux, to name a few; and even those that do not support Linux, support some other UNIX operating system], 2) Many of the cited systems will be eliminated based on the conceptual study, 3) GMU has an extensive experience with the NSA benchmark high-performance computing suite and has already implemented a number of its application programs in C and MPI (in addition to UPC) under the UPC effort, 4) GMU has extensive expertise with Beowulf systems as well as how measure their performance and has access to 3 of these systems, all of which are operated under Dr. Xx- Xxxxxxx’s supervision. Examples of the performance metrics that can be measured are: Average response time- how long it takes before a request start to execute on the average. This will be measured both in time units as well as a ratio to the execution time length of the task. Average turn around time – is the average time from submitting a job till completing it. Will be measured in absolute time units as well as a ratio to the execution time. Utilization - average busy time span to available time span. Time span is measured in time*resource units. Throughput- Overall amount of work performed per unit time, e.g., MFLOPS or applications per second. Load imbalance- this will be measured as the variability in the busy fraction of the time of the different resources. Scheduling overhead- this will be determined by measur...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to An Experimental Performance Study

  • Annual Performance Review The Employee’s performance of his duties under this Agreement shall be reviewed by the Board of Directors or a committee of the Board of Directors at least annually and finalized within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the annual audited financial statements. The Board of Directors or a committee of the Board of Directors shall additionally review the base salary, bonus and benefits provided to the Employee under this Agreement and may, in their discretion, adjust the same, as outlined in Addendum B of this Agreement, provided, however, that Employee’s annual base salary shall not be less than the base salary set forth in Section 4(A) hereof.

  • Ongoing Performance Measures The Department intends to use performance-reporting tools in order to measure the performance of Contractor(s). These tools will include the Contractor Performance Survey (Exhibit H), to be completed by Customers on a quarterly basis. Such measures will allow the Department to better track Vendor performance through the term of the Contract(s) and ensure that Contractor(s) consistently provide quality services to the State and its Customers. The Department reserves the right to modify the Contractor Performance Survey document and introduce additional performance-reporting tools as they are developed, including online tools (e.g. tools within MFMP or on the Department's website).

  • CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE AUDIT The Contractor shall allow the Authorized User to assess Contractor’s performance by providing any materials requested in the Authorized User Agreement (e.g., page load times, response times, uptime, and fail over time). The Authorized User may perform this Contractor performance audit with a third party at its discretion, at the Authorized User’s expense. The Contractor shall perform an independent audit of its Data Centers, at least annually, at Contractor expense. The Contractor will provide a data owner facing audit report upon request by the Authorized User. The Contractor shall identify any confidential, trade secret, or proprietary information in accordance with Appendix B, Section 9(a), Confidential/Trade Secret Materials.

  • PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES 8 A. CONTRACTOR shall achieve performance objectives, tracking and reporting Performance 9 Outcome Objective statistics in monthly programmatic reports, as appropriate. ADMINISTRATOR 10 recognizes that alterations may be necessary to the following services to meet the objectives, and,

  • STATEWIDE ACHIEVEMENT TESTING When CONTRACTOR is an NPS, per implementation of Senate Bill 484, CONTRACTOR shall administer all Statewide assessments within the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (“CAASP”), Desired Results Developmental Profile (“DRDP”), California Alternative Assessment (“CAA”), achievement and abilities tests (using LEA-authorized assessment instruments), the Fitness Gram with the exception of the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (“ELPAC”) to be completed by the LEA, and as appropriate to the student, and mandated by XXX xxxxxxxx to LEA and state and federal guidelines. CONTRACTOR is subject to the alternative accountability system developed pursuant to Education Code section 52052, in the same manner as public schools. Each LEA student placed with CONTRACTOR by the LEA shall be tested by qualified staff of CONTRACTOR in accordance with that accountability program. XXX shall provide test administration training to CONTRACTOR’S qualified staff. CONTRACTOR shall attend LEA test training and comply with completion of all coding requirements as required by XXX.

  • Performance Review Where a performance review of an employee’s performance is carried out, the employee shall be given sufficient opportunity after the interview to read and review the performance review. Provision shall be made on the performance review form for an employee to sign it. The form shall provide for the employee’s signature in two (2) places, one (1) indicating that the employee has read and accepts the performance review, and the other indicating that the employee disagrees with the performance review. The employee shall sign in only one (1) of the places provided. No employee may initiate a grievance regarding the contents of a performance review unless the signature indicates disagreement. An employee shall, upon request, receive a copy of this performance review at the time of signing. An employee’s performance review shall not be changed after an employee has signed it, without the knowledge of the employee, and any such changes shall be subject to the grievance procedure of this Agreement. The employee may respond, in writing, to the performance review. Such response will be attached to the performance review.

  • Performance Targets Threshold, target and maximum performance levels for each performance measure of the performance period are contained in Appendix B.

  • Acceptance/Performance Test 4.7.1 Prior to synchronization of the Power Project, the SPD shall be required to get the Project certified for the requisite acceptance/performance test as may be laid down by Central Electricity Authority or an agency identified by the central government to carry out testing and certification for the solar power projects.

  • Performance Measures and Metrics This section outlines the performance measures and metrics upon which service under this SLA will be assessed. Shared Service Centers and Customers will negotiate the performance metric, frequency, customer and provider service responsibilities associated with each performance measure. Measurements of the Port of Seattle activities are critical to improving services and are the basis for cost recovery for services provided. The Port of Seattle and The Northwest Seaport Alliance have identified activities critical to meeting The NWSA’s business requirements and have agreed upon how these activities will be assessed.

  • Performance Levels (a) The Performance Levels which apply to the performance by the respective Parties of their obligations under this Agreement are set out in Part 1 of Schedule 5. A failure by either Party to achieve the relevant Performance Level will not constitute a breach of this Agreement and the only consequences of such failure as between the Parties shall be the consequences set out in this Clause 5.6.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.