MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070808191 · doi:10.1109/iwqos.2013.6550279

On the impact of popularity decays in peer-to-peer VoD systems

2013· article· en· W2070808191 on OpenAlexafffund
Fei Chen, Haitao Li, Jiangchuan Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceUploadPopularityScalabilityPeer-to-peerOverlayPopulationReplication (statistics)ServerDistributed computingScheduling (production processes)BitTorrentComputer networkWorld Wide WebOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today's peer-to-peer (P2P) Video-on-Demand (VoD) systems are known to be highly scalable in a steady state. For the dynamic scenario, much effort has been spent on accommodating sharply increasing requests (known as flash crowd) with effective solutions being developed. The high popularity upon a flash crowd however does not necessarily last long, and indeed often drops very fast after the peak. Compared to growth, a decay is seemingly less challenging or even beneficial given the less user demands. While this is true in a conventional client/server system, we find that it is not the case for peer-to-peer. A quick decay can easily de-stabilize an established overlay, and the resultant smaller overlay is generally less effective for content sharing. The replication of data segments, which is critical during flash crowd, will not promptly respond to a fast and globalized population decay, either. Many of the replicas can become redundant and, even worse, their spaces cannot be utilized for an extended period. In this paper, we seek to understand the impact of such decays and the key influential factors. To this end, we develop a mathematical model to trace the evolution of peer upload and replication during population churns, specifically during decays. Our model captures peer behaviors with common data replication and scheduling strategies in state-of-the-art peer-to-peer VoD systems. It quantitatively reveals the root causes toward escalating server load during a population decay. The model also facilitates the design of a flexible server provision to serve highly time-varying demands.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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