Towards building performance models for data-intensive workloads in public clouds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cloud computing paradigm provides the "illusion" of infinite resources and, therefore, becomes a promising candidate for large-scale data-intensive computing. In this paper, we explore experiment-driven performance models for data-intensive workloads executing in an infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) public cloud. The performance models help in predicting the workload behaviour, and serve as a key component of a larger framework for resource provisioning in the cloud. We determine a suitable prediction technique after comparing popular regression methods. We also enumerate the variables that impact variance in the workload performance in a public cloud. Finally, we build a performance model for a multi-tenant data service in the Amazon cloud. We find that a linear classifier is sufficient in most cases. On a few occasions, a linear classifier is unsuitable and non-linear modeling is required, which is time consuming. Consequently, we recommend that a linear classifier be used in training the performance model in the first instance. If the resulting model is unsatisfactory, then non-linear modeling can be carried out in the next step.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".