Dynamic Job Scheduling on the Grid Environment using the Great Deluge Algorithm

The utilization of the computational Grid processor network has become a common method for researchers and scientists without access to local processor clusters to avail of the benefits of parallel processing for compute-intensive applications. As a result, this demand requires effective and efficient dynamic allocation of available resources. Although static scheduling and allocation techniques have proved effective, the dynamic nature of the Grid requires innovative techniques for reacting to change and maintaining stability for users. The dynamic scheduling process requires quite powerful optimization techniques, which can themselves lack the performance required in reaction time for achieving an effective schedule solution. Often there is a trade-off between solution quality and speed in achieving a solution. This paper presents an extension of a technique used in optimization and scheduling which can provide the means of achieving this balance and improves on similar approaches currently published.

Dublin docklands. The urban fabric as cultural heritage

Introduction

Since the 1980s there have been major policies and projects for the redevelopment of Dublin Docklands. These projects were mainly aimed at profitable development of office, commercial and residential space, without a sound plan that would preserve the identity or community of the area. The recent shift in policies and urban design principles in the Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan 2008 shows that policy makers have acknowledged that mistakes were made in the last decades of the 20th century. The current map of the Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan 2008 gives us useful information about these changes. The Ringsend/ Irishtown area, which has kept a great part of its urban form and community identity throughout centuries, is described as an ‘area of protection of residential and services amenities’ (DDDA, 2008, map A). Meanwhile, the area of the Grand Canal Docks, recently developed, is described with the objective ‘to seek the social, economic and physical development or rejuvenation
within an area of mixed use of which residential and enterprise facilities would be the predominant uses’ (DDDA, 2008, map A). This classification shows that recent development has been unable to achieve the cohesion and complexity of existing neighbourhoods, revealing flaws not only in policy, but also in the built environment and approaches to urban design.

The shift towards the consideration of more community participation reveals a need to understand the tradition and past of these communities, while the urban fabric of small plots in the existing neighbourhoods, therefore, seems to have a very important role in the conservation of identity of place and providing the opportunity for difference within regularity. On the other hand, the new fabric of residential block developments in the docklands denies the possibility of developing a sense of community, and by providing only regularity, does not leave space for difference.

This paper will address questions related to urban morphology and town analysis in the case of Ringsend and Irishtown. This will provide a tool to learn from the past and perhaps find new models of development that might be less detrimental for the heritage of cities and urban communities. One of the ideas of this paper is to adhere to the new tendency in conservation policies to provide a broader analysis of urban areas, not only considering individual monuments in cities, but also analysing the significance of urban morphology and intangible heritage. It forms part of an OPW Post- Doctoral Fellowship in Conservation Studies and Environmental History.1 Research has been carried out in different areas of urban history of Dublin’s southern waterfront, including infrastructure history and a thorough analysis of the letters of the Pembroke Estate of the 19th century, which included the areas of Ringsend and Irishtown. However, this paper focuses on the study of urban form of the area and its significance to Dublin’s heritage.

Beyond the shadow space: architecture as a professional and creative process; during and post-conflict.

Introduction

Much has been written about the impact of conflict on the physical nature of cities; most obviously perhaps the damage, destruction, defensive construction and spatial reconfigurations that evolve in times of conflict. Set within the context of Belfast, Northern Ireland, this paper will focus on three areas. First, a closer reading of the long-term physical impact of conflict, in particular, the spatial forms and practices that persist conceptually and culturally, and/or resist re-conceptualisation. Secondly, the effect of conflict on the nature of architectural practice itself, considering whether issues such as appointment and procurement impacted on architectural expectation and the context of operation. Thirdly, the effect of conflict on people, in particular in relation to creativity and hence the psyche of practice itself. This section will also identify the conditions that undermine or support design quality and creativity not only within times of conflict but also as society evolves out of the shadow space. 1
Twelve years on from the Peace Agreement,2 it may seem remarkable from an external perspective that Northern Ireland still needs to be reflecting on its troubled past. But the immediate post-conflict phase offered the communities of Northern Ireland place and time to experience ‘normal life’, begin to reconcile themselves to the hurt they experienced and start to reconfigure their relationships to one another. Indeed, it has often been expressed that probing the issues too much, at too early a phase, might in fact ‘Open old wounds without resolving anything’ and/or ‘Destabilise the already fragile political system.’3 This tendency not to deliberate or be too probing is therefore understandable and might be the reason why, for example, Northern Ireland's first Architecture and Built Environment policy, published in June, 2006, contains only one routine reference to ‘the Troubles’.

Clearly, however, there is a time in the development of a healthy, functioning society, when in order effectively to plan its future, it must also carry out a closer reading and deeper understanding of its past. As Maya Angelou puts it, ‘History, despite its wrenching pain/ Cannot be unlived, and if faced/ With courage, need not be lived again.’4

Increasingly, those within the creative arts sector and the built environment professions are showing interest in carrying out that closer reading, teasing out issues around conflict. This was led in part by the recent publication of the Troubles Archive by the Arts Council of Northern Ireland.5 Those involved in the academic or professional development of future generations of architects are also concerned about the relevance of a post-conflict condition. As a profession, if architects purport to be concerned with context, then the almost tangible socio-political circumstances and legacy of Northern Ireland does inevitably require direct eye contact. This paper therefore aims to bring the relationship between conflict and architectural practice in Northern Ireland into sharp focus, not to constrain or dull creative practice but to heighten its potential.

Agitating for a design and regeneration agenda in a postconflict city: the case of Belfast

Introduction

Belfast has been a focus of academic attention for the last forty years with most interest centred on various aspects of ‘the Troubles’. Where there has been interest in the built environment, it has largely been about how the ‘security situation’ impacted directly on architecture and on the design and layout of social housing. This paper seeks to go beyond this to explore how the political- administrative culture of ‘the Troubles’ interacted with ‘normal’ market forces to shape the central area of the city, and to consider the responses of a recently formed activist group, known as the Forum for Alternative Belfast (hereafter referred to as the Forum). The paper is written by three of the directors of the Forum.1 Moreover, the empirical research presented here was undertaken by the Forum as part of a campaign to address issues relating to the design, layout and quality of Belfast’s built environment. In the longstanding tradition of participant observation working within an action-research paradigm, the participants have attempted to offer an account that is evidentially and purposefully selfcritical and reflective. It is of course recognised that while this approach offers many positive attributes, such as phenomenological access through immersion in the project, it also has the potential to bring compromise on research detachment and objectivity.2 To address the latter, the authors have attempted
to avoid polemical argument, and to support claims with primary or secondary research evidence. The authors also acknowledge that action-research has a chequered history; however, they would argue
that their approach is faithful to a concept that sees ‘research’ defined as understanding and ‘action’ defined as seeking change. The Forum’s very purpose is to seek change, but to do this requires evidence, collaboration and demonstration. And in this sense, it is a learning process for all participants, including the research activists, government officials, community organisations and students. The authors also recognise the complexity of factors that affect urban management and change, particularly in a city such as Belfast, which has had to cope with political violence for over thirty years. And they appreciate that in the context of conflict, governance is skewed to cope with political realities. Hamdi reminds us, however, that in practice there is an ‘important dialectic between top-down planning, with its formal and designed laws and structures, and bottom-up selforganizing collectivism—those “quantum and emergent systems” which Jane Jacobs argued long ago give cities their life and order.’3

Threshold In School – As Event And Place For The Autism Spectrum Disorder Pupil

As architects and designers we have a responsibility to provide an inclusive built environment. For the Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) sufferer however, the built environment can be a frightening and confusing place, difficult to negotiate and tolerate. The challenge of integrating more fully into society is denied by an alienating built environment. This barrier can be magnified for ASD pupils in a poorly designed school, where their environment can further distance them from learning. Instead, if more at ease in their surroundings, in an ASD friendly environment, the ASD pupil stands a greater chance of doing better.

Whilst researchers have looked at the classroomenvironment, the transition of classroom to corridor andbeyond has so far been largely ignored. However, theneed for a well-considered threshold between class andcorridor needs to be considered. In this regard, threshold is much more than a doorway, but instead an event that demands a carefully considered place. The following paper firstly outlines why threshold as place andevent for the ASD pupil should be given consideration. It then goes onto highlight, through case studies in anIrish context, the opportunities for aiding the ASD pupil integrating in a mainstream school environment throughsensitive use of threshold. Finally it highlights inconclusion, some of the benefits for an enriched school environment for all pupils, if considering threshold as design generator.The objective is straightforward. By increasing awareness of the relationship between the ASD child and the built environment it will hopefully facilitate greater inclusion of the ASD pupil into mainstream education and society at large.