MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1485888705 · doi:10.1109/mascots.2006.32

Modelling and Improving Group Communication in Server Operating Systems

2006· article· en· W1485888705 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Kwok, Tim Brecht, Martin Karsten, Jialin Song

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCommunication in small groupsUnicastKernel (algebra)Computer networkImplementationOperating systemGroup (periodic table)Models of communicationDistributed computingMulticastSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

virtual environment (DVE) have become increasingly popular. Many DVE implementations use a client-server architecture that requires the server to send the same data to all members of a collaborating or interacting group. This type of group communication operation is often implemented by sending data from the server to each recipient in a unicast fashion. The problem with this approach is that the cost of communication at the server does not scale very well with the number of participants because the application requires significant interaction with the operating system, network stack and drivers for each individual send. In this paper, we first propose a general analytic framework for predicting how group communication performance impacts DVE server capacity. We then conduct an experimental evaluation to determine the extent to which using a kernel-based group communication mechanism reduces the cost of group send operations. Lastly, we use the measurements obtained from these experiments to demonstrate how to apply the analytic framework by determining the extent to which the kernel-based group communication mechanism permits example applications to scale to more users.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207