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

Soft Failures in Large Datacenters

2013· article· en· W1997480558 on OpenAlexaff
Sriram Sankar, Sudhanva Gurumurthi

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.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.006
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

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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Computer Architecture LettersSame topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207