Volley: automated data placement for geo-distributed cloud services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: As cloud services grow to span more and more globally distributed datacenters, there is an increasingly urgent need for automated mechanisms to place application data across these datacenters. This placement must deal with business constraints such as WAN bandwidth costs and datacenter capacity limits, while also minimizing user-perceived latency. The task of placement is further complicated by the issues of shared data, data inter-dependencies, application changes and user mobility. We document these challenges by analyzing monthlong traces from Microsoft’s Live Messenger and Live Mesh, two large-scale commercial cloud services. We present Volley, a system that addresses these challenges. Cloud services make use of Volley by submitting logs of datacenter requests. Volley analyzes the logs using an iterative optimization algorithm based on data access patterns and client locations, and outputs migration recommendations back to the cloud service. To scale to the data volumes of cloud service logs, Volley is designed to work in SCOPE [5], a scalable MapReduce-style platform; this allows Volley to perform over 400 machine-hours worth of computation in less than a day. We evaluate Volley on the month-long Live Mesh trace, and we find that, compared to a stateof-the-art heuristic that places data closest to the primary IP address that accesses it, Volley simultaneously reduces datacenter capacity skew by over 2×, reduces inter-datacenter traffic by over 1.8 × and reduces 75th percentile user-latency by over 30%. 1
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".