MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036310024 · doi:10.1109/lcn.2012.6423681

Dynamic file bundling for large-scale content distribution

2012· article· en· W2036310024 on OpenAlexaff
Song Zhang, Niklas Carlsson, Derek L. Eager, Zongpeng Li, Anirban Mahanti

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational ICT Australia
KeywordsComputer scienceScale (ratio)Content distributionDatabaseComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One highly-scalable approach to content delivery is to harness the upload bandwidth of the clients. Peer-assisted content delivery systems have been shown to effectively offload the servers of popular files, as the request rates of popular content enable the formation of self-sustaining torrents, where the entire content of the file is available among the peers themselves. However, for less popular files, these systems are less helpful in offloading servers. With a long tail of mildly popular content, with a high aggregate demand, a large fraction of the file requests must still be handled by servers. In this paper, we present the design, implementation, and evaluation of a dynamic file bundling system, where peers are requested to download content which they may not otherwise download in order to “inflate” the popularity of less popular files. Our system introduces the idea of a super bundle, which consists of a large catalogue of files. From this catalogue, smaller bundles, consisting of a small set of files, can dynamically be assigned to individual users. The system can dynamically adjust the number of downloaders of each file and thus enables the popularity inflation to be optimized according to current file popularities and the desired tradeoff between download times and server resource usage. The system is evaluated on PlanetLab.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207