MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990395831 · doi:10.1145/1370018.1370032

Monitoring multi-tier clustered systems with invariant metric relationships

2008· article· en· W1990395831 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad A. Munawar, Michael Jiang, Paul A. S. Ward

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInvariant (physics)Metric (unit)Database transactionDistributed computingData miningMachine learningArtificial intelligenceDatabaseEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To ensure high availability, self-managing systems require self-monitoring and a system model against which to analyze monitoring data. Characterizing relationships between system metrics has been shown to model simple multi-tier transaction systems effectively, enabling failure detection and fault diagnosis. In this paper we show how to extend this invariant metric-relationships approach to clustered multi-tier systems. We show through analysis and experimentation that naive application of the approach increases cost dramatically while reducing diagnosis accuracy. We demonstrate that randomization at the load balancer during the invariant-identification phase will improve diagnosis accuracy, though it neither completely eliminates the problem nor reduces the cost; indeed, it may increase the cost, as this approach will require a long learning phase to remove all accidental correlations. Finally, we argue that knowing the system structure is necessary to effectively apply invariants to the clustered environment.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware System Performance and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207