MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W159231793 · doi:10.5555/2349508.2349538

Priority-based scheduling with adaptive speculative locking in distributed real-time transaction processing

2009· article· en· W159231793 on OpenAlexaff
Waqar Haque

Bibliographic record

VenueSummer Computer Simulation Conference · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWorkloadConcurrency controlDistributed computingTransaction processingDatabase transactionScheduling (production processes)Earliest deadline first schedulingOptimistic concurrency controlTwo-phase lockingSerializabilityDistributed transactionReal-time computingDynamic priority schedulingComputer networkRate-monotonic schedulingOperating systemDistributed concurrency controlDatabaseMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The priority assignment protocols can significantly impact the performance of a real-time transaction processing system. The effect of these protocols has been studied under various system and load configurations with the Adaptive Speculative Locking (ASL) as the underlying concurrency control mechanism. The simulation results show that both Earliest Deadline First (EDF) and Shortest Job First (SJF) can provide superior performance depending on the resources available and workload conditions. The effect of update probability and transaction arrival rate is also studied. The paper also provides a significant background of the problem and the related work.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSummer Computer Simulation ConferenceSame topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207