Automatic configuration generation for service high availability with load balancing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY The need for highly available services is ever increasing in various domains ranging from mission‐critical systems to transaction‐based ones such as banking. The Service Availability Forum has defined a set of services and related API specifications to address the growing need of commercial off‐the‐shelf high availability solutions. Among these services, the availability management framework (AMF) is the service responsible for managing the high availability of the application services by coordinating redundant application components deployed on the AMF cluster. To achieve this task, an AMF implementation requires a specific logical view of the organization of the application's services and components, known as an AMF configuration. Developing manually such a configuration is a complex error‐prone task that requires extensive domain knowledge. In this paper, we present an approach for the automatic generation of AMF configurations and alleviate the task of configuration designers. One important aspect of the AMF configuration is ranking the service units, when it is required by the redundancy model, for the assignment of the workload by AMF at runtime. Our approach includes a technique for generating these rankings in such a way that guarantees load balancing even after the occurrence of a failure. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".