MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1582353920 · doi:10.1109/icws.2015.87

SLA-Aware Tenant Placement and Dynamic Resource Provision in SaaS

2015· article· en· W1582353920 on OpenAlexaff
Wenbo Su, Jie Hu, Chuang Lin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware as a serviceCloud computingHeuristicDistributed computingMultitenancyQueueing theoryResource allocationService (business)Optimization problemMathematical optimizationSoftwareOperating systemComputer networkSoftware developmentAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software as a Service (SaaS) is an increasingly important service delivery model in cloud computing, and multitenancy makes it possible to support large scale customized tenants with only one code base. However, the complexity of multi-tenant architecture may lead to poor performance and low resource utilization. The customized demands may also lead to high operating cost. It is very important to develop an accurate model to predict the performance of the multi-tenant SaaS. To this end, a multi-tenant queueing network model is developed. Based on the model, a balanced SLA-aware tenant placement algorithm is proposed considering that customized tenants may need more resources to be placed together. The algorithm is effective in nearly 90% of the simulations comparing with other heuristic algorithms. Furthermore, the optimization problem on dynamic resource provision to minimize the operating cost is studied. As the original optimization problem is NPhard, a continuous upper bound is used to convert the original optimization problem into a convex optimization which can be solved efficiently in polynomial time. Finally, it is demonstrated that the approximate ratio of the proposed approach is no greater than 1.2 in more than 90% of the simulations.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207