An End-to-End QoS Mapping Approach for Cloud Service Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to select and rank the best services in a cloud computing environment, the end-to-end quality of service (QoS) values of cloud services have to be computed. For a new SaaS provider, the deployment of its software application in the cloud is a challenging job. It has to find a hosting service (IaaS) that hosts its service. The primary goal of the SaaS provider is to make its service at the top of the ranked list of cloud services returned to end users through satisfying their QoS requirements. In this paper, we propose a mechanism to map the users' QoS requirements of cloud services to the right QoS specifications of SaaS then map them to best IaaS service that offers the optimal QoS guarantees. Then together SaaS and IaaS services can provide the best service offer to end users. As a result of the mapping, the end-to-end QoS values can be calculated. We propose a set of rules to perform the mapping process. We hierarchically model the QoS specifications of cloud services using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. The AHP based model helps to facilitate the mapping process across the cloud layers, and to rank the candidate cloud services for end users. We use a case study to illustrate and validate our solution approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".