MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997480558 · doi:10.1109/l-ca.2013.25

Soft Failures in Large Datacenters

2013· article· en· W1997480558 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Computer Architecture Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsAdvanced Micro Devices (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntimeComputer scienceReliability (semiconductor)ServerSoftware deploymentReliability engineeringService (business)Process (computing)Failure rateDistributed computingComputer networkOperating systemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major problem in managing large-scale datacenters is diagnosing and fixing machine failures. Most large datacenter deployments have a management infrastructure that can help diagnose failure causes, and manage assets that were fixed as part of the repair process. Previous studies identify only actual hardware replacements to calculate Annualized Failure Rate (AFR) and component reliability. In this paper, we show that service availability is significantly affected by soft failures and that this class of failures is becoming an important issue at large datacenters with minimum human intervention. Soft failures in the datacenter do not require actual hardware replacements, but still result in service downtime, and are equally important because they disrupt normal service operation. We show failure trends observed in a large datacenter deployment of commodity servers and motivate the need to modify conventional datacenter designs to help reduce soft failures and increase service availability.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0020.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.195 · 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