MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1555275600 · doi:10.1109/inm.2015.7140358

Improving flow completion time for short flows in datacenter networks

2015· article· en· W1555275600 on OpenAlexaff
Sijo Joy, Amiya Nayak

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingLatency (audio)Computer networkQueueNetwork congestionThroughputReal-time computingDistributed computingOperating systemNetwork packetWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today's cloud datacenters host wide variety of applications which generate diverse mix of internal datacenter traffic. In a cloud datacenter environment 90% of the traffic flows, though they constitute only 10% of the data carried around, are short flows with sizes up to a maximum of 1MB. The rest 10% constitute long flows with sizes in the range of 1MB to 1GB. Throughput matters for long flows whereas short flows are latency sensitive. Datacenter Transmission Control Protocol (DCTCP) is a transport layer protocol that is widely deployed at datacenters nowadays. DCTCP aims to reduce the latency for short flows by keeping the queue occupancy at the datacenter switches under control while ensuring throughput requirements are met for long flows. But, DCTCP congestion control algorithm treats short flows and long flows equally. We demonstrate that treating them differently, by reducing the congestion window for short flows at a lower rate compared to long flows at the onset of congestion, we could improve the flow completion time for short flows by up to 25%, thereby reducing their latency up to 25%. We have implemented a modified version of DCTCP for cloud datacenters, based on the DCTCP patch available for Linux, which achieves better flow completion time for short flows while ensuring that throughput of long flows are not affected.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207