MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119787116 · doi:10.1364/jocn.4.00b101

Designing an Energy-Efficient Cloud Network [Invited]

2012· article· en· W2119787116 on OpenAlexaff
Burak Kantarcı, Hussein T. Mouftah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Optical Communications and Networking · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProvisioningComputer scienceCloud computingServerBottleneckComputer networkHeuristicsOverhead (engineering)Energy consumptionDistributed computingBenchmark (surveying)Integer programmingEmbedded systemEngineeringOperating systemAlgorithmElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cloud computing services are mainly hosted in remote data centers (DCs) where high performance servers and high capacity storage systems are located. Moving the services to distant servers can help handling the energy bottleneck of the information and communication technologies by leading to significant power savings at the local computing resources, which on the other hand increases the energy consumption of the transport network and the DCs. In this paper, we propose mixed-integer-linear-programming- (MILP-) based provisioning models to guarantee either minimum delayed or maximum power-saving cloud services where high performance DCs are assumed to be located at the core nodes of an IP-over-wavelength division multiplexing network. We further propose heuristics, namely, delay-minimized provisioning and power-minimized provisioning, each of which mimics the behavior of the benchmark MILP formulation. Through numerical results, we show that power savings can be attained at the expense of increased propagation delays. Hence, we finally propose the delay- and power-minimized provisioning (DePoMiP), which aims to minimize the propagation delay, maximize the power savings in the transport network and minimize the power consumption overhead introduced to the DCs. Simulation results verify that DePoMiP achieves low-delay and low-power provisioning in an environment which is dominated by the cloud services.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Optical Communications and NetworkingSame topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207