Evaluates the runtime performance overhead and scalability of a containerized deep learning platform (FfDL) compared to bare-metal and specialized hardware, using standard image classification benchmarks. It measures how much throughput degrades when running DL training jobs in a Kubernetes-based multi-tenant environment versus direct execution. Use when the user has predictions and gold and needs to compute performance_overhead_pct.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill ffdl-platform-overhead --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Ffdl Platform Overhead?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-ffdl-platform-overhead)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: ffdl-platform-overhead
description: Evaluates the runtime performance overhead and scalability of a containerized deep learning platform (FfDL) compared to bare-metal and specialized hardware, using standard image classification benchmarks. It measures how much throughput degrades when running DL training jobs in a Kubernetes-based multi-tenant environment versus direct execution. Use when the user has predictions and gold and needs to compute performance_overhead_pct.
metadata:
skill_kind: metric
source_arxiv: 1909.06526
bibtex_key: jayaram2019ffdl
confidence: high
---
# ffdl-platform-overhead
> FfDL : A Flexible Multi-tenant Deep Learning Platform — Jayaram et al. (2019) (arXiv:1909.06526, 2019)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the runtime performance overhead and scalability of a containerized deep learning platform (FfDL) compared to bare-metal and specialized hardware, using standard image classification benchmarks. It measures how much throughput degrades when running DL training jobs in a Kubernetes-based multi-tenant environment versus direct execution.
## Datasets
- **ImageNet** — total 1300000; splits: train (-1)
## Metrics
- `performance_overhead_pct` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Percentage decrease in training throughput relative to a bare-metal baseline. Calculated as ((baseline_throughput - platform_throughput) / baseline_throughput) * 100.
- `throughput_images_per_sec` — range: other
- Number of images processed per second during model training. Measured directly from the training loop iterations and batch size.
## Input / output format
**Input**: DL training job configuration specifying model architecture (VGG-16, Inception V3, ResNet-50), framework (Caffe v1.0, TensorFlow v1.5), GPU type (K80, P100, V100), number of learners, GPUs per learner, and batch size.
**Output**: Throughput in images processed per second, and percentage decrease in performance relative to a bare-metal baseline.
## Scoring recipe
```python
baseline = run_benchmark_baremetal(model, framework, gpu_config)
platform = run_benchmark_ffdl(model, framework, gpu_config)
overhead = ((baseline - platform) / baseline) * 100
return overhead
```
## Common pitfalls
- Overhead varies significantly by GPU type and distributed configuration (learners/GPUs per learner), so reporting a single aggregate number masks significant variance.
- Baseline uses manually managed bare-metal servers rather than a standardized containerized setup, potentially attributing K8s/Docker overhead incorrectly.
- Throughput is highly sensitive to CPU thread allocation and batch size; failing to saturate the GPU will artificially inflate measured overhead.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Performance is quantified as images processed/sec for training. Caffe v1.0 and TensorFlow v1.5 were used. ... From Table 1, we observe that performance overhead induced by FfDL is minimal (up to ≈ 5%).
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{jayaram2019ffdl,
title={FfDL : A Flexible Multi-tenant Deep Learning Platform},
author={Jayaram et al. (2019)},
year={2019},
note={arXiv:1909.06526}
}
```
- arXiv: 1909.06526
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!