Dynamic Control of Electricity Cost with Power Demand Smoothing and Peak Shaving for Distributed Internet Data Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internet based service providers, such as Amazon, Google, Yahoo etc, build their data centers (IDC) across multiple regions to provide reliable and low latency of services to clients. Ever-increasing service demand, complexity of services and growing client population cause enormous power consumptions by these IDCs incurring a major part of their running costs. Modern electric power grid provides a feasible way to dynamically and efficiently manage the electricity cost of distributed IDCs based on the Locational Marginal Pricing (LMP) policy. While recent works exploit LMP by electricity-price based geographic load distribution, the dynamic workload and high volatility of electricity prices induce highly volatile power demand and critical power peak problem. The benefit of cost minimization via geographic load distribution is counterbalanced with the high cost incurred by violating the peak power. In this paper, we study the dynamic control of electricity cost to provide low volatility in power demand and shaving of power peaks. To this end, a Model Predictive Control (MPC) electricity cost minimization problem is formulated based on a time-continuous differential model. The proposed solution minimizes electricity costs, provides low variation in power demand by penalizing the change in workload and alleviates the power peaks by tracking the available power budget. By providing extensive simulation results based on real-life electricity price traces we show the effectiveness of our approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".