MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121206479 · doi:10.1109/compsac.2010.68

Improving Software Performance and Reliability with an Architecture-Based Self-Adaptive Framework

2010· article· en· W2121206479 on OpenAlexaff
Xu Zhang, Chung–Horng Lung

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConcurrencyDistributed computingReliability (semiconductor)Software architectureArchitectureSwitchoverConcurrency controlSoftwareOperating systemDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern computer systems for distributed service computing become highly complex and difficult to manage. A self-adaptive approach that integrates monitoring, analyzing, and actuation functionalities has the potential to accommodate to a dynamically changing environment. The main objective of this paper is to develop an architecture-based self-adaptive framework to improve performance and resource efficiency of a server while maintaining reliable services. The target problem is distributed and concurrent systems. This paper proposes a Self-Adaptive Framework for Concurrency Architecture (SAFCA) that includes multiple concurrency architectural patterns or alternatives. The framework has monitoring and managing capabilities that can invoke another architectural alternative at run-time to cope with increasing demands or for reliability purpose. Two control mechanisms have been developed: SAFCA-Q and SAFCA-R. With SAFCA-Q, the system does not need to be statically configured for the highest workloads; hence, resource usage becomes more efficient in normal conditions and the system still is able to handle busty demands. SAFCA-R is used to improve reliability in the case of a failure by conducting a switchover to another software architecture. Experiment results demonstrate that the performance of SAFCA-Q is better than systems using only standalone concurrency architecture and resources are also better utilized. SAFCA-R also shows fast recovery in the face of a failure.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207