Bibliographic record
Abstract
Project JXTA is an open-source effort to specify the standard protocols for peer-to-peer communication and collaboration. We propose a JXTA performance model and present results obtained by benchmarking the JXTA 1.0 reference implementation in Java. We focus on the performance evaluation of typical peer operations and consequences for the peer network, the user and the developer. The important trade-off between peer startup latency and the maintenance of the local cache is shown and discussed. The throughput limits of pipes, the core JXTA communication concept, are also measured in a LAN environment for smooth and bursty traffic. The results indicate that the limiting factor for reliable throughput is the number of messages rather than size in bytes, as well as that small JXTA messages carry an excessive overhead of control data. Important performance issues and trade-offs are identified and explored, as a basis for the formulation of guidelines for system designers and simulation-based research of JXTA networks.
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 | 0.017 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.012 |
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".