Performance analysis of electronic commerce multiprocessor server
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of an electronic commerce server, i.e. a system running electronic commerce applications, is evaluated in the case of a shared-bus multiprocessor architecture. In particular, we focus on the memory subsystem design. We have analyzed the common case of a system using the MESI coherence protocol, for maintaining coherency among the processor private caches. We have evaluated the miss ratio and the bus traffic of such a system by varying cache size, number of ways, scheduling policy and number of processors, highlighting the relations with different types of data sharing generated by the application or the kernel. We found that passive sharing and false sharing are the major sources of coherence overhead in the case of relatively large caches (over 1M-byte size). False sharing is mainly due to kernel data, and can be eliminated by using appropriate data structure design techniques. A scheduling technique, like cache-affinity can reduce passive sharing but it is not effective in every load condition. Thus, a special coherence protocol could be a better solution to completely eliminate passive sharing overhead and boost performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".