MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016752183 · doi:10.1109/ic2e.2015.79

Comparing Containers versus Virtual Machines for Achieving High Availability

2015· article· en· W2016752183 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtualizationHypervisorComputer scienceOperating systemVirtual machineContainer (type theory)Hardware virtualizationStorage virtualizationApplication virtualizationFull virtualizationEmbedded systemCloud computingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent decades, virtualization as an abstraction from physical hardware has become a popular solution to resource isolation and server consolidation. With the surge in adoption of virtualization technologies, ensuring High Availability (HA) for applications hosted in virtualized environments emerges as an important problem and has garnered substantial attention. In this paper, we present a brief comparison of virtualization technologies from a HA perspective. The state-of-the-art HA solutions in two mainstream types of virtualized platforms (i.e., hypervisor-based platform and container-based platform) are respectively investigated in terms of limitations and features such as live migration, failure detection, and checkpoint/ restore. One of our key findings is that, compared with hypervisor-based platforms, HA features in container-based platforms are far from enough. From a HA perspective, extensions on top of container technologies are required.

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)0.001
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 score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207