MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079365006 · doi:10.1109/notere.2010.5536839

Ranking service units for providing and protecting highly available services with load balancing

2010· article· en· W2079365006 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Kanso, Ferhat Khendek, Abdelwahab Hamou‐Lhadj, Maria Toeroe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)Concordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRedundancy (engineering)WorkloadDistributed computingLoad balancing (electrical power)Service (business)IT service continuityHigh availabilityRanking (information retrieval)Computer networkDatabaseOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In highly available systems, continuous load balancing in the presence of failure is essential to avoid performance degradation. The Availability Management Framework (AMF) is a middleware service that manages the availability of the applications' services by coordinating their provision among the application's redundant components. The application's components that collaborate to provide a service are logically grouped into a service unit (SU). For management purpose, the SU workload is abstracted as a service instance (SI). Redundant SUs that collaborate to protect a set of Sis are grouped into a service group (SG). The assignment of the Sis to the SUs is a runtime operation performed by AMF. For some redundancy models, NWay and NWayActive, this assignment is performed for each SI according to a predefined ranked list of the SUs in the SG. In this paper we discuss the challenges of defining this ranking at configuration time and propose an approach that automatically generates the ranked list of SUs at that time and guaranties continuous load balancing.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicService-Oriented Architecture and Web ServicesFrench-language works237,207