MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288792628 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2015.7417797

Mitigating Datacenter Incast Congestion Using RTO Randomization

2015· article· en· W2288792628 on OpenAlexaff
Ubaid Ullah Hafeez, Aqsa Kashaf, Qurat-ul-ann Bajwa, Aisha Mushtaq, Hassan Zaidi, Ihsan Ayyub Qazi, Zartash Afzal Uzmi

Bibliographic record

Venue2015 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsMicrosoft (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkGoodputNetwork packetInterval (graph theory)TimeoutDistributed computingThroughputReal-time computingWirelessOperating systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TCP incast congestion happens in many-to-one communication workflow patterns that frequently arise in large-scale datacenter applications such as web search, social networks, and cluster-based storage systems. Incast congestion can severely degrade the performance of applications. This paper studies the effectiveness of randomizing the TCP retransmission timeout (RTO) in mitigating the impact of incast. Our design is based on the observation that under incast, retransmitted packets also get synchronized due to the use of similar RTOs by the senders. Using analysis and experimental evaluation, we show that there exists a tradeoff between the randomization interval (from which the RTO values are picked) and the number of senders involved in incast. Motivated by this insight, we propose three algorithms (TDA, MAA, and FSA) for the dynamic adaptation of the randomization interval that rely on (a) successive timeouts, (b) explicit knowledge of the level of multiplexing, and/or (c) the knowledge of flow sizes (i.e., large interval for long flows and a small interval for short flows), respectively. Our results show that these algorithms improve goodput by 1.5x-11x for up to 64 senders and provide greater improvement for larger number of senders. The proposed algorithms can be readily deployed as they do not require any changes in switches or applications.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2015 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM)Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207