A Dynamical and Load-Balanced Flow Scheduling Approach for Big Data Centers in Clouds
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Load-balanced flow scheduling for big data centers in clouds, in which a large amount of data needs to be transferred frequently among thousands of interconnected servers, is a key and challenging issue. The OpenFlow is a promising solution to balance data flows in data center networks through its programmatic traffic controller. Existing OpenFlow based scheduling schemes, however, statically set up routes only at the initialization stage of data transmissions, which suffers from dynamical flow distribution and changing network states in data centers and often results in poor system performance. In this paper, we propose a novel dynamical load-balanced scheduling (DLBS) approach for maximizing the network throughput while balancing workload dynamically. We first formulate the DLBS problem, and then develop a set of efficient heuristic scheduling algorithms for the two typical OpenFlow network models, which balance data flows time slot by time slot. Experimental results demonstrate that our DLBS approach significantly outperforms other representative load-balanced scheduling algorithms Round Robin and LOBUS; and the higher imbalance degree data flows in data centers exhibit, the more improvement our DLBS approach will bring to the data centers.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it