MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117260160 · doi:10.1109/icde.2005.6

A Comparative Evaluation of Transparent Scaling Techniques for Dynamic Content Servers

2005· article· en· W2117260160 on OpenAlexafffund
Cristiana Amza, Anna L. Cox, Willy Zwaenepoel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Distributed computingServerWorkloadLoad balancing (electrical power)Dynamic web pageSoftware deploymentDatabaseComputer networkOperating systemWeb serviceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study several transparent techniques for scaling dynamic content Web sites, and we evaluate their relative impact when used in combination. Full transparency implies strong data consistency as perceived by the user, no modifications to existing dynamic content site tiers and no additional programming effort from the user or site administrator upon deployment. We study strategies for scheduling and load balancing queries on a cluster of replicated database back-ends. We also investigate transparent query caching as a means of enhancing database replication. Our work shows that, on an experimental platform with up to 8 database replicas, the various techniques work in synergy to improve overall scaling for the e-commerce TPC-W benchmark. We rank the techniques necessary for high performance in order of impact as follows. Key among the strategies are scheduling strategies, such as conflict-aware scheduling, that minimize consistency maintenance overheads. The choice of load balancing strategy is less important. Transparent query result caching increases performance significantly at any given cluster size for a mostly-read workload. Its benefits are limited for write-intensive workloads, where content-aware scheduling is the only scaling option.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations69
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCaching and Content DeliveryFrench-language works237,207