Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

This survey proposes a two-axis taxonomy — hardware/software optimization method and energy/carbon sustainability goal — as the first systematic classification of Kubernetes scheduling strategies.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

A systematic survey categorizing carbon-aware Kubernetes scheduling algorithms along hardware/software and energy/carbon axes, with a proposed taxonomy.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful taxonomy idea and broad literature coverage, but the classification is applied inconsistently and the 'systematic' PRISMA claim is unsupported, so treat it as a starting map, not the authoritative one. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.05949 v1 pith:HRNLMQXK submitted 2025-08-08 cs.SE

A Survey on Task Scheduling in Carbon-Aware Container Orchestration

Jialin Yang , Zainab Saad , Jiajun Wu , Xiaoguang Niu , Henry Leung , Steve Drew This is my paper
classification cs.SE
keywords Kubernetescontainer orchestrationcarbon-aware schedulingenergy efficiencytask schedulingtaxonomysystematic reviewcloud computing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that the scattered field of carbon-aware Kubernetes scheduling can be organized into a single two-axis map: schedulers are either hardware-driven or software-driven, and they pursue either energy efficiency or carbon-emissions awareness. On that basis it proposes what it calls the first systematic classification of Kubernetes scheduling strategies, with twelve named technique groups and a dual-layer taxonomy that links each strategy to its environmental impact. A sympathetic reader would care because it gives cloud operators and researchers a common vocabulary for comparing schedulers and for seeing where the field is crowded (temporal and spatial carbon shifting) and where it is thin (GPU scheduling, software carbon intensity data).

Core claim

The central claim is that existing Kubernetes scheduling work divides along two independent axes. The first axis is optimization method: hardware-centric schedulers act on telemetry and physical signals (power meters, CPU counters, carbon intensity feeds, server state), while software-centric schedulers change the scheduling logic itself, using algorithms from integer programming to deep reinforcement learning. The second axis is sustainability goal: energy efficiency (less total power use) versus carbon awareness (lower emissions intensity, typically by moving work in time or across regions). Crossing these axes yields a taxonomy whose twelve groups include energy-consumption priority sched

What carries the argument

The organizing device is a dual-layer taxonomy. The top layer is the two-by-two classification just described; the lower layer names twelve concrete scheduler families (for example, energy-consumption priority schedulers, temporal and spatial carbon shifting, serverless/edge/federated solutions) and attaches each to its stated sustainability goal. The taxonomy does the paper's main work: it converts a pile of individual scheduler papers and industry tools into a reusable map that shows which techniques exist, which environmental objective they serve, and where the empty cells are.

Load-bearing premise

The taxonomy's claimed coverage rests on the literature search being systematic and reproducible, but the paper names a review guideline while omitting the actual protocol — no databases, search strings, date range, or screening counts are reported — so a selectively gathered corpus would make the classification complete only for what happened to be found.

What would settle it

Run the survey's claimed search (databases, years, and keywords, once the paper states them) and check whether every carbon-aware Kubernetes scheduler returned lands in one of the twelve taxonomy groups; a substantial body of missing or unclassifiable schedulers would falsify the completeness claim. A quicker check: the flow diagram labeled Figure 1 is cited but its screening and inclusion counts never appear, so those numbers should be recoverable from the authors' records.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A practitioner can classify any new carbon-aware scheduler by asking two questions: does it act on hardware telemetry or on scheduling logic, and does it target energy efficiency or carbon emissions — and then place it in one of twelve named families.
  • The map shows that temporal and spatial carbon shifting is the most developed route to carbon awareness, while GPU scheduling and software carbon-intensity measurement remain open.
  • The separate marking of industry papers (Kepler, Carbon Scaler, Nomad's carbon-aware experiment, Google's carbon-intelligent compute) makes it possible to see where production practice already meets the academic literature.
  • Because the taxonomy separates energy efficiency from carbon awareness, it makes explicit that a scheduler can lower energy use without lowering emissions, or shift carbon without saving energy; future schedulers need to state which goal they serve.
  • For researchers, the twelve families provide ready-made comparison baselines: a new proposal can be positioned against the best-known method in its family rather than against the default Kubernetes scheduler only.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same two-axis classification could be applied to other orchestration engines (Nomad, Docker Swarm, or Mesos), giving the field a cross-platform map rather than a Kubernetes-specific one.
  • A testable extension would be to quantify, family by family, the reported emission reductions in the surveyed papers; the taxonomy currently records categories and goals but does not rank methods by measured effect.
  • The paper's own framing suggests that carbon intensity data quality is the hidden constraint: if grid carbon forecasts are coarse or proprietary, the temporal and spatial shifting families have an upper bound on real-world gains that no scheduling algorithm can surpass.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper is a survey of Kubernetes task scheduling from a sustainability perspective. It proposes a taxonomy based on two dimensions — hardware-driven vs software-driven optimization and energy efficiency vs carbon-awareness goals — and groups surveyed papers into twelve technique categories. It also reviews the evolution from virtualization to containers, describes industry initiatives, and discusses challenges and open opportunities. The claimed contribution is the 'first systematic classification' of Kubernetes scheduling algorithms along these two dimensions.

Significance. If the classification were applied carefully, this would be a useful organizing reference for researchers and practitioners working on carbon-aware container orchestration. The paper compiles recent work, labels industry contributions, and offers a convenient overlay of scheduling techniques and sustainability objectives. It also provides a useful comparison with prior surveys in Table 1. However, the manuscript's own tables violate the proposed taxonomy, and the PRISMA-based methodology is not reported in an auditable form. The current version therefore does not yet deliver on its central claim, although the shortcomings are repairable.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, Tables 2, 4, 5] The central classification is internally inconsistent. Section 5 defines Energy Efficiency as reducing power consumption and Carbon Awareness as accounting for carbon intensity/emissions. Yet Table 5 ('Carbon-Aware Scheduling Techniques') includes Dominant Resource Fairness [94], DL2 [96], Smart-Kube [95], and the KEDA autoscaling benchmark [116], whose key proposals concern fairness, performance, or energy and make no reference to carbon intensity or emissions. Conversely, Table 2 labels 'Carbon-Efficient Virtual Machine Placement' [74] and the Green Cloud virtual data-center model [73] as Energy Efficiency although their stated objective is reducing carbon emissions. Table 4 files KEIDS [89] under Energy Efficiency even though its key proposal says it minimizes energy consumption and carbon emissions. These contradictions are load-bearing because the paper's main claim is a two-dimensi
  2. [§2, Fig. 1] The survey claims to follow PRISMA, but no protocol is reportable. Section 2 lists PRISMA and mentions Fig. 1, yet the manuscript gives no search databases, query strings, date range, inclusion/exclusion criteria, screening steps, or PRISMA flow counts. Fig. 1 appears only as a caption/figure placeholder. Because the completeness of the literature base is essential to the claimed 'first systematic classification,' the methodology must be completed and made reproducible before the survey can be evaluated.
  3. [§5.3, references [99], [107], [128]] There are unreadable and unreliable artifacts. Equation (1) in the Low-Carbon Kubernetes Scheduler discussion is typeset with placeholder glyph characters, so the migration condition cannot be read. The reference list/citations are not trustworthy: [99] is used both for the PPO energy DRL paper and for 'Operating Cloud Applications Under a Carbon Budget' (the latter should be [121]); [107] is duplicated between Table 4 and the reference list; and [128] is cited for a GPU virtualization claim that is not supported by the listed Gaia Scheduler reference. These defects must be fixed for verifiability.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The caption's 'Both in Optimization' is ungrammatical; the column description should read 'Both' or 'Both-level optimization.' Several other table cells have comma splices and should be copyedited.
  2. [Fig. 2] The taxonomy diagram is not rendered in the reviewed version; only the caption is visible. Ensure the final PDF includes the diagram and that it matches the groupings in Tables 2–5.
  3. [§8.6] The Federated Learning discussion is disconnected from the scheduling taxonomy. Briefly state how non-IID data, limited bandwidth, and aggregation robustness affect carbon-aware scheduling decisions, or clearly mark this subsection as background rather than part of the taxonomy.
  4. [§5.2] The paragraph following the Keystone/telemetry discussion repeats the 10–20% power-savings figure from the earlier summary of [72]. Consider consolidating the repeated details into one place.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the survey applies an external taxonomy to cited literature and derives no results from its own inputs.

full rationale

This is a literature survey, not a derivation. The central claim—a two-dimensional taxonomy of Kubernetes scheduling by optimization method and sustainability goal—is an organizational schema applied to externally published papers. No quantity is fitted to data and then reported as a prediction; no equation in the paper is defined in terms of another result that it is supposed to explain. The taxonomy categories (hardware/software, energy efficiency/carbon awareness) are stated definitions in Section 5, and the papers are sorted into them; any misclassification (e.g., DRF [94] or Smart-Kube [95] listed in the Carbon Awareness table despite being fairness/energy-oriented) is a classification-validity or correctness issue, not circularity, because the categories do not derive their meaning from the papers assigned to them. The paper cites prior surveys (e.g., Carrión [11], Senjab et al. [22]) but does not rely on any self-citation as load-bearing evidence; none of the authors' own prior results are invoked to justify the taxonomy. The missing PRISMA protocol details in Section 2 (no databases, search strings, screening criteria, or flow diagram contents) is a reproducibility and completeness limitation, not a circular step: incompleteness of the literature search would weaken coverage but does not make the taxonomy equivalent to its inputs. Therefore, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The survey does not introduce physical entities, fitting parameters, or formal derivations. Its central claim depends on three domain assumptions about the faithfulness of its literature summaries, the exhaustiveness of its taxonomy, and the execution of its claimed systematic search.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The summarized descriptions of the surveyed papers are faithful to the original publications.
    The survey's classification and tables (Tables 2-5) rest on this. The paper provides no cross-check with originals, and the citation errors ([99], [107], [128]) make this assumption less safe.
  • domain assumption The taxonomy categories are exhaustive and mutually exclusive for the surveyed literature.
    Section 5 asserts the two-dimensional classification (hardware/software by energy/carbon) covers the reviewed approaches, but no formal justification, inter-rater process, or test of category overlap is described.
  • domain assumption The PRISMA-informed systematic search was actually executed as claimed.
    Section 2 states PRISMA was selected, but the protocol details and flow diagram are missing, so the representativeness of the selected papers depends on this unverifiable assumption.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Survey on Task Scheduling in Carbon-Aware Container Orchestration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HRNLMQXK

@misc{pith2026250805949,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Survey on Task Scheduling in Carbon-Aware Container Orchestration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HRNLMQXK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05949}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The soaring energy demands of large-scale software ecosystems and cloud data centers, accelerated by the intensive training and deployment of large language models, have driven energy consumption and carbon footprint to unprecedented levels. In response, both industry and academia are increasing efforts to reduce the carbon emissions associated with cloud computing through more efficient task scheduling and infrastructure orchestration. In this work, we present a systematic review of various Kubernetes scheduling strategies, categorizing them into hardware-centric and software-centric, annotating each with its sustainability objectives, and grouping them according to the algorithms they use. We propose a comprehensive taxonomy for cloud task scheduling studies, with a particular focus on the environmental sustainability aspect. We analyze emerging research trends and open challenges, and our findings provide critical insight into the design of sustainable scheduling solutions for next-generation cloud computing systems.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Adaptive Management of Microservices in Dynamic Computing Environments: A Taxonomy and Future Directions

    cs.DC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new taxonomy for dynamics-aware microservice management, synthesized from 84 systems, finds that production dynamics are often only partially modeled and that reported performance gains depend on evaluation realism.

  2. EcoKube: Simulating Carbon-Aware Scheduling Policies in Heterogeneous Edge-Cloud Environments

    cs.DC 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5

    EcoKube provides a configurable event-driven simulator and reference policy that cuts estimated emissions ~45% versus default Kubernetes under synthetic hybrid edge-cloud scenarios, with modest makespan cost.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Energy efficiency in cloud computing data center: a survey on hardware technologies,

    A. Katal, S. Dahiya, and T. Choudhury, “Energy efficiency in cloud computing data center: a survey on hardware technologies, ”Cluster Computing, vol. 25, pp. 1–31, 02 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    International research journal of modernization in engineering technology and science,

    R. Sabastian, P. Arun, N. Krishna, and R. Faris, “International research journal of modernization in engineering technology and science, ”International Research journal of modernization in engineering technology and science , vol. 3, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Thangam, H

    D. Thangam, H. .M, R. Ramesh, G. N. Ramakrishna, N. Muddasir, A. Khan, S. Booshan, B. Booshan, and R. Ganesh, Impact of Data Centers on Power Consumption, Climate Change, and Sustainability , 03 2024, pp. 60–83

    2024

  4. [4]

    Patel, I

    P. Patel, I. Dua, and S. David, Sustainable Cloud Development: Optimize cloud workloads for environmental impact in the GenAI era. Packt Publishing, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.ca/books?id=laRHEQAAQBAJ

    2025

  5. [5]

    Carbon emission-aware job scheduling for kubernetes deployments,

    T. Piontek, K. Haghshenas, and M. Aiello, “Carbon emission-aware job scheduling for kubernetes deployments, ”The Journal of Supercomputing, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 549–569, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Energy-aware scheduling algorithm for microservices in kubernetes clouds,

    M. Rao and H. Li, “Energy-aware scheduling algorithm for microservices in kubernetes clouds, ” Journal of Grid Computing, vol. 23, no. 1, p. Art. no.2, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10723-024-09788-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s10723-024-09788-w 2024

  7. [7]

    Towards performance and energy aware kubernetes scheduler,

    H. Dong, P. Singh, Y. Awad, F. George, K. Narayanam, S. Arora, and J. Appavoo, “Towards performance and energy aware kubernetes scheduler, ”Energy Informatics Review, Jul. 2 2025, online, July 2

    2025

  8. [8]

    Virtualization in cloud computing-a study,

    M. Singh, “Virtualization in cloud computing-a study, ” in2018 international conference on advances in computing, communication control and networking (ICACCCN) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 64–67

    2018

  9. [9]

    Virtualization in cloud computing: Moving from hypervisor to containerization—a survey,

    A. Bhardwaj and C. R. Krishna, “Virtualization in cloud computing: Moving from hypervisor to containerization—a survey, ”Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering , vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 8585–8601, 2021

    2021

  10. [10]

    Containers and cloud: From lxc to docker to kubernetes,

    D. Bernstein, “Containers and cloud: From lxc to docker to kubernetes, ”IEEE cloud computing, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 81–84, 2014

    2014

  11. [11]

    Kubernetes scheduling: Taxonomy, ongoing issues and challenges,

    C. Carrión, “Kubernetes scheduling: Taxonomy, ongoing issues and challenges, ”ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 1–37, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    Cost-efficient orchestration of containers in clouds: A vision, architectural elements, and future directions,

    R. Buyya, M. A. Rodriguez, A. N. Toosi, and J. Park, “Cost-efficient orchestration of containers in clouds: A vision, architectural elements, and future directions, ”Journal of Physics: Conference Series , vol. 1108, p. 012001, Nov. 2018. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1108/1/012001

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1108/1/012001 2018

  13. [13]

    Optimizing resource management and scalability in container orchestration platforms: A comparative study,

    A. Rajuroy and E. Mr, “Optimizing resource management and scalability in container orchestration platforms: A comparative study, ”Journal or Archive (via ResearchGate) , 2025, includes Kubernetes, Docker Swarm, Apache Mesos comparison. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389853261_Optimizing_Resource_ Management_and_Scalability_i...

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Opportunistic energy-aware scheduling for container orchestration platforms using graph neural networks,

    P. Raith, G. Rattihalli, A. Dhakal, S. R. Chalamalasetti, D. Milojicic, E. Frachtenberg, S. Nastic, and S. Dustdar, “Opportunistic energy-aware scheduling for container orchestration platforms using graph neural networks, ” in2024 IEEE 24th International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Internet Computing (CCGrid) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 299–306

    2024

  15. [15]

    Borg, omega, and kubernetes,

    B. Burns, B. Grant, D. Oppenheimer, E. Brewer, and J. Wilkes, “Borg, omega, and kubernetes, ” inCommunications of the ACM, vol. 59, no. 5. ACM, 2016, pp. 50–57

    2016

  16. [16]

    Cloud container technologies: A state-of-the-art review,

    C. Pahl, A. Brogi, J. Soldani, and P. Jamshidi, “Cloud container technologies: A state-of-the-art review, ”IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 677–692, 2019

    2019

  17. [17]

    Container-based cluster orchestration systems: A taxonomy and future directions,

    M. A. Rodriguez and R. Buyya, “Container-based cluster orchestration systems: A taxonomy and future directions, ”

  18. [18]

    Resource management in fog/edge computing: A survey on architectures, infrastructure, and algorithms,

    C.-H. Hong and B. Varghese, “Resource management in fog/edge computing: A survey on architectures, infrastructure, and algorithms, ”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 52, no. 5, Sep. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3326066

    doi:10.1145/3326066 2019

  19. [19]

    Casalicchio, Container Orchestration: A Survey

    E. Casalicchio, Container Orchestration: A Survey . Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 221–235. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92378-9_14

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92378-9_14 2019

  20. [20]

    Container scheduling techniques: A survey and assessment,

    I. Ahmad, M. G. AlFailakawi, A. AlMutawa, and L. Alsalman, “Container scheduling techniques: A survey and assessment, ”Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences , vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 3934–3947, 2022

    2022

  21. [21]

    Custom scheduling in kubernetes: A survey on common problems and solution approaches,

    Z. Rejiba and J. Chamanara, “Custom scheduling in kubernetes: A survey on common problems and solution approaches, ”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 55, no. 7, Dec. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3544788

    doi:10.1145/3544788 2022

  22. [22]

    Analyzing and characterizing kubernetes scheduling algorithms: a survey,

    S. N. A. Jawaddi, A. Ismail, M. S. Sulaiman, and V. Cardellini, “Analyzing and characterizing kubernetes scheduling algorithms: a survey, ” Journal of Cloud Computing , vol. 12, no. 1, p. 35, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://journalofcloudcomputing.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13677-023-00471-1 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: Septembe...

    doi:10.1186/s13677-023-00471-1 2023

  23. [23]

    Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting,

    D. F. Stroup, J. A. Berlin, S. C. Morton, I. Olkin, G. D. Williamson, D. Rennie, D. Moher, B. J. Becker, T. A. Sipe, S. B. Thacker et al., “Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting, ”Jama, vol. 283, no. 15, pp. 2008–2012, 2000

    2008

  24. [24]

    Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions,

    J. P. Higgins, S. Green et al., “Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, ” 2008

    2008

  25. [25]

    Robis: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed,

    P. Whiting, J. Savović, J. P. Higgins, D. M. Caldwell, B. C. Reeves, B. Shea, P. Davies, J. Kleijnen, R. Churchillet al., “Robis: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed, ”Journal of clinical epidemiology , vol. 69, pp. 225–234, 2016

    2016

  26. [26]

    Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluations (grade) notes: extremely serious, grade’s terminology for rating down by three levels,

    T. Piggott, R. L. Morgan, C. A. Cuello-Garcia, N. Santesso, R. A. Mustafa, J. J. Meerpohl, H. J. Schünemann, G. W. Group et al., “Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluations (grade) notes: extremely serious, grade’s terminology for rating down by three levels, ”Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , vol. 120, pp. 116–120, 2020

    2020

  27. [27]

    The prisma 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,

    M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow, L. Shamseer, J. M. Tetzlaff, E. A. Akl, S. E. Brennan et al., “The prisma 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, ”bmj, vol. 372, 2021

    2020

  28. [28]

    Recalibrating global data center energy-use estimates,

    E. Masanet, A. Shehabi, N. Lei, S. Smith, and J. Koomey, “Recalibrating global data center energy-use estimates, ” Science, vol. 367, no. 6481, pp. 984–986, 2020

    2020

  29. [29]

    2024 united states data center energy usage report,

    A. Shehabi, O. Ma, S. Smith, E. Masanet, J. Koomey, and W. Lintner, “2024 united states data center energy usage report, ” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Tech. Rep. LBNL-2002431, 2024, accessed July 5, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/32d6m0d1

    2024

  30. [30]

    Electricity 2024, analysis and forecast to 2026,

    E. Çam, Z. Hungerford, N. Schoch, F. P. Miranda, and C. D. Y. de León, “Electricity 2024, analysis and forecast to 2026, ” 2024

    2024

  31. [31]

    A systematic literature review on task allocation and performance management techniques in cloud data center,

    N. Chauhan, N. Kaur, K. S. Saini, S. Verma, A. Alabdulatif, R. A. Khurma, M. Garcia-Arenas, and P. A. Castillo, “A systematic literature review on task allocation and performance management techniques in cloud data center, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.13135

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Cost and time efficient task scheduling for immediate mode heuristic in computational cloud,

    P. Banga and S. Rana, “Cost and time efficient task scheduling for immediate mode heuristic in computational cloud, ” Adv. Math.: Sci. J, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1101–1110, 2020

    2020

  33. [33]

    Heuristic algorithms for solving a set of np-hard single-machine scheduling problems with resource-dependent processing times,

    B. Mor, D. Shabtay, and L. Yedidsion, “Heuristic algorithms for solving a set of np-hard single-machine scheduling problems with resource-dependent processing times, ”Computers & Industrial Engineering , vol. 153, p. 107024, 2021

    2021

  34. [34]

    Cloud scheduling using meta heuristic algorithms,

    A. Jain and A. Upadhyay, “Cloud scheduling using meta heuristic algorithms, ”IJCSE, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 132–139, 2017

    2017

  35. [35]

    Container-based cluster orchestration systems: A taxonomy and future directions,

    M. A. Rodriguez and R. Buyya, “Container-based cluster orchestration systems: A taxonomy and future directions, ” Software: Practice and Experience , vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 698–719, 2019

    2019

  36. [36]

    Energy-aware load dispatching in geographically located internet data centers,

    X. Zheng and Y. Cai, “Energy-aware load dispatching in geographically located internet data centers, ” Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems , vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 275–285, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221053791100045X

    2011

  37. [37]

    T-alloc: a practical energy efficient resource allocation algorithm for traditional data centers,

    D. M. Quan, F. Mezza, D. Sannenli, and R. Giafreda, “T-alloc: a practical energy efficient resource allocation algorithm for traditional data centers, ”Future Generation Computer Systems , vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 791–800, 2012

    2012

  38. [38]

    Real-time monitoring and evaluation of energy efficiency and thermal management of data centers,

    B. Lajevardi, K. R. Haapala, and J. F. Junker, “Real-time monitoring and evaluation of energy efficiency and thermal management of data centers, ” Journal of Manufacturing Systems , vol. 37, pp. 511–516, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278612514000740

    2015

  39. [39]

    Servers and data centers energy performance metrics,

    A. Beitelmal and D. Fabris, “Servers and data centers energy performance metrics, ”Energy and Buildings, vol. 80, pp. 562–569, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778814003594

    2014

  40. [40]

    A review of federated learning in renewable energy applications: Potential, challenges, and future directions,

    A. Grataloup, S. Jonas, and A. Meyer, “A review of federated learning in renewable energy applications: Potential, challenges, and future directions, ” Energy and AI , vol. 17, p. 100375, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666546824000417

    2024

  41. [41]

    Renewables: Share data on wind energy,

    A. Kusiak, “Renewables: Share data on wind energy, ”Nature, vol. 529, no. 7584, pp. 19–21, 2016

    2016

  42. [42]

    Wind power forecasting considering data privacy protection: A federated deep reinforcement learning approach,

    Y. Li, R. Wang, Y. Li, M. Zhang, and C. Long, “Wind power forecasting considering data privacy protection: A federated deep reinforcement learning approach, ”Applied Energy, vol. 329, p. 120291, 2023

    2023

  43. [43]

    Deep federated learning-based privacy-preserving wind power forecasting,

    A. Ahmadi, M. Talaei, M. Sadipour, A. M. Amani, and M. Jalili, “Deep federated learning-based privacy-preserving wind power forecasting, ”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 39 521–39 530, 2022

    2022

  44. [44]

    A privacy-preserving wind speed prediction method based on federated deep learning,

    Y. Wang, W. Zhang, Q. Guo, and Y. Wu, “A privacy-preserving wind speed prediction method based on federated deep learning, ” in2022 4th International Conference on Power and Energy Technology (ICPET) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 638–643

    2022

  45. [45]

    An efficient federated transfer learning framework for collaborative monitoring of wind turbines in ioe-enabled wind farms,

    L. Wang, W. Fan, G. Jiang, and P. Xie, “An efficient federated transfer learning framework for collaborative monitoring of wind turbines in ioe-enabled wind farms, ”Energy, vol. 284, p. 128518, 2023

    2023

  46. [46]

    A cyber-secure generalized supermodel for wind power forecasting based on deep federated learning and image processing,

    H. Moayyed, A. Moradzadeh, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, A. P. Aguiar, and R. Ghorbani, “A cyber-secure generalized supermodel for wind power forecasting based on deep federated learning and image processing, ”Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 267, p. 115852, 2022

    2022

  47. [47]

    Public preferences for carbon tax attributes,

    Z. Gevrek and A. Uyduranoğlu, “Public preferences for carbon tax attributes, ” Ecological Economics, vol. 118, pp. 186–197, 2015. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2025. 32 Jialin et al

    2015

  48. [48]

    Carbon taxes,

    G. Timilsina, “Carbon taxes, ” Journal of Economic Literature , 2022

    2022

  49. [49]

    A future for carbon taxes,

    A. Baranzini, J. Goldemberg, and S. Speck, “A future for carbon taxes, ”Ecological Economics, vol. 32, pp. 395–412, 2000

    2000

  50. [50]

    Toward a systematic survey for carbon neutral data centers,

    Z. Cao, X. Zhou, H. Hu, Z. Wang, and Y. Wen, “Toward a systematic survey for carbon neutral data centers, ”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 24, pp. 895–936, 2021

    2021

  51. [51]

    Quantitative analysis of the effects of different carbon tax levels on emissions and costs of data centers

    S. Bosse, A. Nahhas, and K. Turowski, “Quantitative analysis of the effects of different carbon tax levels on emissions and costs of data centers. ” inWirtschaftsinformatik (Zentrale Tracks), 2020, pp. 1349–1363

    2020

  52. [52]

    Kubernetes scheduling: Extending the default scheduler with the scheduling framework,

    B. Sigelman, Y. Suh, and M. Nawrocki, “Kubernetes scheduling: Extending the default scheduler with the scheduling framework, ” inSREcon. USENIX, 2019

    2019

  53. [53]

    Kube-scheduler — concepts, filtering and scoring,

    Kubernetes Contributors, “Kube-scheduler — concepts, filtering and scoring, ” https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/ scheduling-eviction/kube-scheduler/, 2024, accessed: 2025-07-15

    2024

  54. [54]

    Scheduling framework,

    ——, “Scheduling framework, ” https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/scheduling-framework/, 2024, accessed: 2025-07-15

    2024

  55. [55]

    Large-scale cluster management at google with borg,

    A. Verma, L. Pedrosa, M. Korupolu, D. Oppenheimer, E. Tune, and J. Wilkes, “Large-scale cluster management at google with borg, ”EuroSys, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1–17, 2015

    2015

  56. [56]

    Kubernetes scheduling: How it works and key factors,

    T. Duggal, “Kubernetes scheduling: How it works and key factors, ” PerfectScale, Tech. Rep., 2025, explains that default kube-scheduler focuses on CPU/memory, without other metrics. [Online]. Available: https: //www.perfectscale.io/blog/kubernetes-scheduling

    2025

  57. [57]

    Gaia scheduler: A kubernetes-based scheduler framework,

    S. Song, L. Deng, J. Gong, and H. Luo, “Gaia scheduler: A kubernetes-based scheduler framework, ” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Sustainable Computing & Communications , 2018, pp. 252–259, shows static rule-based scheduling without learning or adaptation

    2018

  58. [58]

    Fine-Grained Scheduling for Containerized HPC Workloads in Kubernetes Clusters

    W. Fang et al., “Fine-grained scheduling for containerized hpc workloads in kubernetes clusters, ” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11487, 2022, demonstrates that default scheduler does per-pod placement and lacks global optimization. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.11487

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [60]

    Kube-scheduler — concepts, filtering and scoring,

    K. Contributors, “Kube-scheduler — concepts, filtering and scoring, ” https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/scheduling- eviction/kube-scheduler/, 2024, mentions that the scheduler uses random tie-breaking for nodes with equal scores

    2024

  60. [62]

    Ai Alliance fostering a vibrant ai hardware accelerator ecosystem through enabling software technology

    “Ai Alliance fostering a vibrant ai hardware accelerator ecosystem through enabling software technology. ” https: //thealliance.ai/focusareas/hardware, accessed: 2024-07-02

    2024

  61. [63]

    CNCF model, view, and reduce your workload carbon emission by crane in a declarative way,

    “CNCF model, view, and reduce your workload carbon emission by crane in a declarative way, ” https://www.cncf. io/blog/2023/03/27/model-view-and-reduce-your-workload-carbon-emission-by-crane-in-a-declarative-way/, ac- cessed: 2024-07-02

    2023

  62. [64]

    HashiCorp carbon-aware nomad experiment,

    “HashiCorp carbon-aware nomad experiment, ” https://github.com/hashicorp/nomad/blob/h-carbon-meta/CARBON. md#carbon-aware-nomad-experiment, accessed: 2024-07-02

    2024

  63. [65]

    Bp energy outlook 2030,

    B. Global and B. Worldwide, “Bp energy outlook 2030, ”London, UK, vol. 34, 2011

    2030

  64. [66]

    Oil producers face their ‘life or death’question,

    D. Sheppard and A. Raval, “Oil producers face their ‘life or death’question, ”Financial Times, vol. 19, 2018

    2018

  65. [67]

    Shell’s carbon ambition: Blueprint for an energy supermajor,

    W. Mackenzie, “Shell’s carbon ambition: Blueprint for an energy supermajor, ”Wood Mackenzie, 2018

    2018

  66. [68]

    Oil majors see their chance in staid world of utilities,

    A. Ward, “Oil majors see their chance in staid world of utilities, ”Financial Times, www. ft. com/content/648a25ce-116d- 11e8-940e-08320fc2a277 (accessed October 8, 2020) , 2018

    2020

  67. [69]

    Oil majors see their chance in staid world of utilities,

    ——, “Oil majors see their chance in staid world of utilities, ”Financial Times, www. ft. com/content/648a25ce-116d-11e8- 940e-08320fc2a277 (accessed October 8, 2020) , 2018

    2020

  68. [70]

    The week in energy: Looking for the peak,

    F. Times, “The week in energy: Looking for the peak, ” Financial Times, 2018

    2018

  69. [71]

    Majors renewables project tracker,

    W. Mackenzie, “Majors renewables project tracker, ”Wood Mackenzie, 2018

    2018

  70. [72]

    Improving data center efficiency through holistic scheduling in kubernetes,

    P. Townend, S. Clement, D. Burdett, R. Yang, J. Shaw, B. Slater, and J. Xu, “Improving data center efficiency through holistic scheduling in kubernetes, ” in2019 IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 156–15 610

    work page 2019

  71. [73]

    A virtual data center deployment model based on the green cloud computing,

    L. Xu, C. Li, L. Li, Y. Liu, Z. Yang, and Y. Liu, “A virtual data center deployment model based on the green cloud computing, ” in2014 IEEE/ACIS 13th International Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS) . IEEE, 2014, pp. 235–240

    work page 2014

  72. [74]

    Carbon-efficient virtual machine placement in cloud datacenters over optical networks,

    J. Zhang, W. Wang, Y. Xiao, L. Hu, Y. Li, Y. Zhao, and J. Zhang, “Carbon-efficient virtual machine placement in cloud datacenters over optical networks, ” in2023 Opto-Electronics and Communications Conference (OECC) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–4. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2025. A Survey on Task Scheduling in Carbon-Aware Container Orc...

    work page 2023

  73. [75]

    Heats: Heterogeneity-and energy-aware task- based scheduling,

    I. Rocha, C. Göttel, P. Felber, M. Pasin, R. Rouvoy, and V. Schiavoni, “Heats: Heterogeneity-and energy-aware task- based scheduling, ” in2019 27th Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-Based Processing (PDP). IEEE, 2019, pp. 400–405

    work page 2019

  74. [76]

    Kepler: A framework to calculate the energy consumption of containerized applications,

    M. Amaral, H. Chen, T. Chiba, R. Nakazawa, S. Choochotkaew, E. K. Lee, and T. Eilam, “Kepler: A framework to calculate the energy consumption of containerized applications, ” in2023 IEEE 16th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD). IEEE, 2023, pp. 69–71

    work page 2023

  75. [77]

    Static and dynamic temperature-aware scheduling for multiprocessor socs,

    A. K. Coskun, T. S. Rosing, K. A. Whisnant, and K. C. Gross, “Static and dynamic temperature-aware scheduling for multiprocessor socs, ”IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. Syst. , vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 1127–1140, 2008

    work page 2008

  76. [78]

    Kcss: Kubernetes container scheduling strategy,

    T. Menouer, “Kcss: Kubernetes container scheduling strategy, ” The Journal of Supercomputing , vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 4267–4293, 2021

    work page 2021

  77. [79]

    Carbon-aware computing for datacenters,

    A. Radovanović, R. Koningstein, I. Schneider, B. Chen, A. Duarte, B. Roy, D. Xiao, M. Haridasan, P. Hung, N. Careet al., “Carbon-aware computing for datacenters, ”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1270–1280, 2022

    work page 2022

  78. [80]

    Carbonscaler: Leveraging cloud workload elasticity for optimizing carbon-efficiency,

    W. A. Hanafy, Q. Liang, N. Bashir, D. Irwin, and P. Shenoy, “Carbonscaler: Leveraging cloud workload elasticity for optimizing carbon-efficiency, ”Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1–28, 2023

    work page 2023

  79. [81]

    Peaks: Power-efficiency-aware kubernetes scheduler,

    P. Souza, Y. Guo, and R. H. Research, “Peaks: Power-efficiency-aware kubernetes scheduler, ” inProceedings of the 20th International Middleware Conference, 2024, p. 321–333

    work page 2024

  80. [82]

    Real-time node’s power-aware kubernetes scheduler in a cloud environment,

    S. Kumari and A. Dakhane, “Real-time node’s power-aware kubernetes scheduler in a cloud environment, ”Computer Communications, vol. 215, p. 149–162, 2025

    work page 2025

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.