End-to-End Performance Prediction for Selecting Cloud Services Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In cloud computing, in order to select or recommend the best service solutions to end users, the end-to-end QoS requirements (e.g. response time and throughput) have to be computed. A typical cloud solution is a combination of multiple component services such as IaaS, SaaS, PaaS, etc. In a simplified case, there could be two components- software services and infrastructure services. The software service alone can satisfy end user's functional requirements (e.g. business objectives); however, the end-to-end QoS requirements require a collaboration of the multiple components at multiple cloud layers. In this paper, we consider the multilayered cloud architecture for computing the end-to-end performance values for cloud solutions. We propose a new method for measuring cloud component services similarity and predicting the end-to-end performance values of cloud solutions. In this method, the historical performance data of cloud component services is used based on users' past invocations. To evaluate our method and show its effectiveness, series of experiments are conducted. The experimental results demonstrate that our cloud multi-layers based method produces better prediction accuracy than other prediction approaches that consider one cloud layer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".