MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110499194 · doi:10.1109/infcom.2009.5062193

Keep Cache Replacement Simple in Peer-Assisted VoD Systems

2009· article· en· W2110499194 on OpenAlexaff
Jiahua Wu, B. Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCacheCache algorithmsBandwidth (computing)Flexibility (engineering)Cache invalidationPeer-to-peerComputer networkUploadSmart CacheCPU cacheDistributed computingOnline algorithmOperating systemAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peer-assisted Video-on-Demand (VoD) systems have not only received substantial recent research attention, but also been implemented and deployed with success in large-scale real- world streaming systems, such as PPLive. Peer-assisted Video- on-Demand systems are designed to take full advantage of peer upload bandwidth contributions with a cache on each peer. Since the size of such a cache on each peer is limited, it is imperative that an appropriate cache replacement algorithm is designed. There exists a tremendous level of flexibility in the design space of such cache replacement algorithms, including the simplest alternatives such as Least Recently Used (LRU). Which algorithm is the best to minimize server bandwidth costs, so that when peers need a media segment, it is most likely available from caches of other peers? Such a question, however, is arguably non-trivial to answer, as both the demand and supply of media segments are stochastic in nature. In this paper, we seek to construct an analytical framework based on optimal control theory and dynamic programming, to help us form an in-depth understanding of optimal strategies to design cache replacement algorithms. With such analytical insights, we have shown with extensive simulations that, the performance margin enjoyed by optimal strategies over the simplest algorithms is not substantial, when it comes to reducing server bandwidth costs. In most cases, the simplest choices are good enough as cache replacement algorithms in peer-assisted VoD systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations62
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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