Joint Dimensioning of Server and Network Infrastructure for Resilient Optical Grids/Clouds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We address the dimensioning of infrastructure, comprising both network and server resources, for large-scale decentralized distributed systems such as grids or clouds. We design the resulting grid/cloud to be resilient against network link or server failures. To this end, we exploit relocation: Under failure conditions, a grid job or cloud virtual machine may be served at an alternate destination (i.e., different from the one under failure-free conditions). We thus consider grid/cloud requests to have a known origin, but assume a degree of freedom as to where they end up being served, which is the case for grid applications of the bag-of-tasks (BoT) type or hosted virtual machines in the cloud case. We present a generic methodology based on integer linear programming (ILP) that: chooses a given number of sites in a given network topology where to install server infrastructure; and determines the amount of both network and server capacity to cater for both the failure-free scenario and failures of links or nodes. For the latter, we consider either failure-independent (FID) or failure-dependent (FD) recovery. Case studies on European-scale networks show that relocation allows considerable reduction of the total amount of network and server resources, especially in sparse topologies and for higher numbers of server sites. Adopting a failure-dependent backup routing strategy does lead to lower resource dimensions, but only when we adopt relocation (especially for a high number of server sites): Without exploiting relocation, potential savings of FD versus FID are not meaningful.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".