MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115979170 · doi:10.1109/clustr.2006.311840

Cluster-based IP Router: Implementation and Evaluation

2006· article· en· W2115979170 on OpenAlexaff
Qinghua Ye, M.H. MacGregor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfiniBandComputer scienceRouterCore routerForwarding planeComputer networkScalabilityOne-armed routerNetwork packetIP forwardingLatency (audio)Packet forwardingLow latency (capital markets)Operating systemRouting tableRouting protocolTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IP routers are now increasingly expected to do more than just traditional packet forwarding - they must be extensible as well as scalable. It is a challenge to design a router architecture to support both high (and increasing) packet forwarding rates as well as a wide array of packet processing services. The most easily extensible design would be entirely software-based, but this is in tension with the requirement for high performance. One possible answer is to couple a software-based router with a high performance platform. Cluster-based supercomputers are very successful due to their scalability and high availability, and they also exhibit outstanding performance/cost ratio. In this paper, we describe the implementation and evaluation of an extensible and scalable software-based IP router, which is built using a cluster of processors connected by a high-speed/low latency InfiniBand interconnection network. Our measurements show that the performance of this router can be scaled nearly linearly with increasing hardware

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5GFrench-language works237,207