MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dynamic Service Placement in Geographically Distributed Clouds

2013· article· en· W2144776482 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceService providerNash equilibriumCloud computingService (business)Context (archaeology)Key (lock)Service delivery frameworkGame theoryDistributed computingOperations researchComputer securityMicroeconomicsBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-scale online service providers have been increasingly relying on geographically distributed cloud infrastructures for service hosting and delivery. In this context, a key challenge faced by service providers is to determine the locations where service applications should be placed such that the hosting cost is minimized while key performance requirements (e.g., response time) are ensured. Furthermore, the dynamic nature of both demand pattern and infrastructure cost favors a dynamic solution to this problem. Currently most of the existing solutions for service placement have either ignored dynamics, or provided solutions inadequate to achieve this objective. In this paper, we present a framework for dynamic service placement problems based on control- and game-theoretic models. In particular, we present a solution that optimizes the hosting cost dynamically over time according to both demand and resource price fluctuations. We further consider the case where multiple service providers compete for resources in a dynamic manner. This paper extends our previous work [1] by analyzing the outcome of the competition in terms of both price of stability and price of anarchy. Our analysis suggests that in an uncoordinated scenario where service providers behave in a selfish manner, the resulting Nash equilibrium can be arbitrarily worse than the optimal centralized solution in terms of social welfare. Based on this observation, we present a coordination mechanism that can be employed by the infrastructure provider to maximize the social welfare of the system. Finally, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our solutions using realistic simulations.

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.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.245 · 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