Server selection in large-scale video-on-demand systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Video on demand, particularly with user-generated content, is emerging as one of the most bandwidth-intensive applications on the Internet. Owing to content control and other issues, some video-on-demand systems attempt to prevent downloading and peer-to-peer content delivery. Instead, such systems rely on server replication, such as via third-party content distribution networks, to support video streaming (or pseudostreaming) to their clients. A major issue with such systems is the cost of the required server resources. By synchronizing the video streams for clients that make closely spaced requests for the same video from the same server, server costs (such as for retrieval of the video data from disk) can be amortized over multiple requests. A fundamental trade-off then arises, however, with respect to server selection. Network delivery cost is minimized by selecting the nearest server, while server cost is minimized by directing closely spaced requests for the same video to a common server. This article compares classes of server selection policies within the context of a simple system model. We conclude that: (i) server selection using dynamic system state information (rather than only proximities and average loads) can yield large improvements in performance, (ii) deferring server selection for a request as late as possible (i.e., until just before streaming is to begin) can yield additional large improvements, and (iii) within the class of policies using dynamic state information and deferred selection, policies using only “local” (rather than global) request information are able to achieve most of the potential performance gains.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it