MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2243174701 · doi:10.1109/lcomm.2015.2496955

On the Impact of Network State Collection on the Performance of SDN Applications

2015· article· en· W2243174701 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohamed Aslan, Ashraf Matrawy

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEmulationComputer scienceState (computer science)Data collectionLoad balancing (electrical power)Computer networkController (irrigation)Real-time computingDistributed computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intelligent and autonomous SDN applications need to monitor the network state in order to take appropriate actions. In this letter, we compare the impact of active and passive network state collection methods on an SDN load-balancing application running at the controller. We do this comparison through: 1) the results of a mathematical model evaluation we derive for the SDN load-balancer, and 2) the results of a series of elaborate experiments we ran on our emulation setup. The results show that in case of low-variation traffic, the load-balancer with passive state collection performed better than the active one, which was confirmed by both model and experimental evaluation. However, the load-balancer with the active state collection was more resilient to the nature of the traffic load.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations54
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications LettersSame topicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5GFrench-language works237,207