Load balancing for parallel forwarding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workload distribution is critical to the performance of network processor based parallel forwarding systems. Scheduling schemes that operate at the packet level, e.g., round-robin, cannot preserve packet-ordering within individual TCP connections. Moreover, these schemes create duplicate information in processor caches and therefore are inefficient in resource utilization. Hashing operates at the flow level and is naturally able to maintain per-connection packet ordering; besides, it does not pollute caches. A pure hash-based system, however, cannot balance processor load in the face of highly skewed flow-size distributions in the Internet; usually, adaptive methods are needed. In this paper, based on measurements of Internet traffic, we examine the sources of load imbalance in hash-based scheduling schemes. We prove that under certain Zipf-like flow-size distributions, hashing alone is not able to balance workload. We introduce a new metric to quantify the effects of adaptive load balancing on overall forwarding performance. To achieve both load balancing and efficient system resource utilization, we propose a scheduling scheme that classifies Internet flows into two categories: the aggressive and the normal, and applies different scheduling policies to the two classes of flows. Compared with most state-of-the-art parallel forwarding schemes, our work exploits flow-level Internet traffic characteristics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".