MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135447503 · doi:10.1145/1998582.1998603

A bayesian approach to online performance modeling for database appliances using gaussian models

2011· article· en· W2135447503 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Bilal Sheikh, Umar Farooq Minhas, Omar Zia Khan, Ashraf Aboulnaga, Pascal Poupart, D. Taylor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDatabaseWorkloadScheduling (production processes)ProvisioningCloud computingDatabase administratorData modelingResponse timeData miningDistributed computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to meet service level agreements (SLAs) and to maintain peak performance for database management systems (DBMS), database administrators (DBAs) need to implement policies for effective workload scheduling, admission control, and resource provisioning. Accurately predicting response times of DBMS queries is necessary for a DBA to effectively achieve these goals. This task is particularly challenging due to the fact that a database workload typically consists of many concurrently running queries and an accurate model needs to capture their interactions. Additional challenges are introduced when DBMSes are run in dynamic cloud computing environments, where workload, data, and physical resources can change frequently, on-the-fly. Building an efficient and highly accurate online DBMS performance model that is robust in the face of changing workloads, data evolution, and physical resource allocations is still an unsolved problem. In this work, our goal is to build such an online performance model for database appliances using an experiment-driven modeling approach. We use a Bayesian approach and build novel Gaussian models that take into account the interaction among concurrently executing queries and predict response times of individual DBMS queries. A key feature of our modeling approach is that the models can be updated online in response to new queries or data, or changing resource allocations. We experimentally demonstrate that our models are accurate and effective – our best models have an average prediction error of 16.3 % in the worst case. 1

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.135 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations36
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207