MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170560434 · doi:10.1109/tpds.2013.227

Optimal Load Balancing and Energy Cost Management for Internet Data Centers in Deregulated Electricity Markets

2013· article· en· W2170560434 on OpenAlexaff
Huajie Shao, Lei Rao, Zhi Wang, Xue Liu, Zhibo Wang, Kui Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersZhejiang University
KeywordsComputer scienceQueueing theoryElectricityHeuristicService-level agreementService providerEnergy consumptionQuality of serviceLoad balancing (electrical power)Service (business)The InternetComputer networkConstraint (computer-aided design)Load managementTransmission (telecommunications)TelecommunicationsBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Along with the rapid increasing energy consumption, the energy cost of Internet data centers (IDCs) has been skyrocketing. A novel scheme of geographical load balancing was proposed to reduce electricity bills for service providers. However, one important challenge faced by service providers has not been considered properly. In service systems, the service delay faced by consumers includes the queuing delay and the transmission delay. While existing work only consider the queuing delay, the transmission delay introduced by geographical load balancing has been overlooked. It is one of the most important factors affecting the quality of service for real-time service systems. In this paper, we take the transmission delay into our design consideration and formulate a mixed-integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) problem with coupled constraint to achieve the optimal load balancing and energy cost management for IDCs while meeting the service-level agreements (SLA) of consumers. A novel heuristic based branch and bound with feedback (HBBF) algorithm is proposed to decouple the MINLP problem with coupled constraint efficiently. Extensive performance evaluations based on real electricity price data and site-to-site transmission delay data demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed algorithm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.222
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations49
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed SystemsSame topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207