Characterizing Web-Based Video Sharing Workloads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Video sharing services that allow ordinary Web users to upload video clips of their choice and watch video clips uploaded by others have recently become very popular. This article identifies invariants in video sharing workloads, through comparison of the workload characteristics of four popular video sharing services. Our traces contain metadata on approximately 1.8 million videos which together have been viewed approximately 6 billion times. Using these traces, we study the similarities and differences in use of several Web 2.0 features such as ratings, comments, favorites, and propensity of uploading content. In general, we find that active contribution, such as video uploading and rating of videos, is much less prevalent than passive use. While uploaders in general are skewed with respect to the number of videos they upload, the fraction of multi-time uploaders is found to differ by a factor of two between two of the sites. The distributions of lifetime measures of video popularity are found to have heavy-tailed forms that are similar across the four sites. Finally, we consider implications for system design of the identified invariants. To gain further insight into caching in video sharing systems, and the relevance to caching of lifetime popularity measures, we gathered an additional dataset tracking views to a set of approximately 1.3 million videos from one of the services, over a twelve-week period. We find that lifetime popularity measures have some relevance for large cache (hot set) sizes (i.e., a hot set defined according to one of these measures is indeed relatively “hot”), but that this relevance substantially decreases as cache size decreases, owing to churn in video popularity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".