Applicability of Markets to Global Scheduling in Grids: Critical Examination of General Equilibrium Theory and Market Folklore

Markets are often considered superior to other global scheduling mechanisms for distributed computing systems. This claim is supported by: a casual observation from our every-day life that markets successfully equilibrate supply and demand, and the features of markets which originate in the general equilibrium theory, e.g., efficiency and the lack of necessity of 2 central controller. This paper describes why such beliefs in markets are not warranted. It does so by examining the general equilibrium theory, in terms of scope, abstraction, and interpretation. Not only does the general equilibrium theory fail to provide a satisfactory explanation of actual economies, including a computing-resource economy, it also falls short of supplying theoretical foundations for commonly held views of market desirability. This paper also points out that the argument for the desirability of markets involves circular reasoning and that the desirability can be established only vis-a-vis a scheduling goal. Finally, recasting the conclusion of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem as that for global scheduling, we conclude that there exists no market-based scheduler that is rational (in the sense defined in microeconomic theory), takes into account utility of more than one user, and yet yields a Pareto-optimal outcome for arbitrary user utility functions.