MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975813011 · doi:10.1109/icc.2013.6655223

Time of use (ToU)-awareness with inter-data center workload sharing in the cloud backbone

2013· article· en· W1975813011 on OpenAlexaff
Burak Kantarcı, Hussein T. Mouftah

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingProvisioningData centerComputer scienceComputer networkUnicastVirtualizationWorkloadEnergy consumptionDistributed computingOperating systemMulticast

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cloud computing is the leading edge concept which combines the advantages of several existing computing concepts for the betterment of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) business. This new business model aims at moving the services such as software, platform and/or infrastructure to a shared pool of resources which are mainly housed in the data centers. In this paper, we propose a novel virtualization scheme for the cloud network with the objective of provisioning the demands among the data centers in a Time-Of-Use (ToU) pricing-aware manner while ensuring maximum energy savings in the cloud network throughout the day. In addition to the unicast demands between backbone nodes, upstream user demand destined to data centers, and downstream data center demands originating from many data centers, here, we also consider inter-data center traffic in order to enable workload sharing between the data centers. Through numerical results, we show that significant savings in terms of operational expenditures (Opex) can be achieved while demands can be provisioned with less energy consumption in the data centers and network equipments. Furthermore, we show that incorporation of inter-data center workload sharing in ToU-aware provisioning can mitigate the increased propagation delay introduced to the user demands submitted to the cloud.

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)0.000
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 score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0030.002
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207