MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009451545 · doi:10.1109/rndm.2015.7324306

Dimensioning backbone networks for multi-site data centers: Exploiting anycast routing for resilience

2015· article· en· W2009451545 on OpenAlexafffund
Chris Develder, Brigitte Jaumard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConcordia University
KeywordsAnycastComputer scienceComputer networkExploitDimensioningResilience (materials science)Distributed computingCloud computingMacrocellBackbone networkOverlay networkRouting (electronic design automation)Computer securityBase stationThe InternetEngineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current era of big data, applications increasingly rely on powerful computing infrastructure residing in large data centers (DCs), often adopting cloud computing technology. Clearly, this necessitates efficient and resilient networking infrastructure to connect the users of these applications with the data centers hosting them. In this paper, we focus on backbone network infrastructure on large geographical scales (i.e., the so-called wide area networks), which typically adopts optical network technology. In particular, we study the problem of dimensioning such backbone networks: what bandwidth should each of the links provide for the traffic, originating at known sources, to reach the data centers? And possibly even: how many such DCs should we deploy, and at what locations? More concretely, we summarize our recent work that essentially addresses the following fundamental research questions: (1) Does the anycast routing strategy influence the amount of required network resources? (2) Can we exploit anycast routing for resilience purposes, i.e., relocate to a different DC under failure conditions, to reduce resource capacity requirements? (3) Is it advantageous to change anycast request destinations from one DC location to the other, from one time period to the next, if service requests vary over time?

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207