Power-aware design of the optical interconnect for future data centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The volume of traffic carried on the Optical Transport Network (OTN) is continuously growing, not only due to the increase of new services, new applications, and the number of both connected users and smart devices, but also owing to the rapidly growing Data Center Interconnect (DCI) market. As a result, telecom operators need to upgrade their transport networks to cope with these new traffic requirements. This tremendous increase in bandwidth demand will also introduce energy bottlenecks in OTNs. The telecommunication networks' significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GGE) is another challenge that must be addressed in OTN design and planning policies. Thus, energy-efficient OTN architectures are currently attracting the attention of telecom operators. The candidate OTN architectures are: (1) the conventional Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) fixed grid with high Single Line Rates (SLRs); (2) the conventional DWDM fixed grid adopting Mixed Line Rates (MLRs); and (3) the Elastic Optical Network (EON) or flexigrid-based architecture which is enabled by the Optical Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (O-OFDM) technique. This paper evaluates the power consumption of the abovementioned OTN architectures under different traffic loads and patterns, as well as different network physical topologies. In order to perform the evaluation, new heuristic algorithms are specifically developed for the green design and planning of data center optical interconnects.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".