MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528870978 · doi:10.1002/spe.2441

Toward cost‐effective replica placements in cloud storage systems with QoS‐awareness

2016· article· en· W2528870978 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSoftware Practice and Experience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsCrandall UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersScience and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong ProvinceKorea Institute for Advancement of TechnologyNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational University of Singapore
KeywordsReplicaComputer scienceQuality of serviceDistributed computingCloud computingGreedy algorithmCloud storageWorkflowSet (abstract data type)Replication (statistics)Computer networkDatabaseAlgorithmOperating systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary In this paper, we propose a simulation model to study real‐world replication workflows for cloud storage systems. With this model, we present three new methods to maximize the storage space usage during replica creation, and two novel QoS aware greedy algorithms for replica placement optimization. By using a simulation method, our algorithms are evaluated, through a comparison with the existing placement algorithms, to show that (i) a more evenly distributed replicas for a data set can be achieved by using round‐robin methods in replica creation phase and (ii) the two proposed greedy algorithms, named GS_QoS and GS_QoS_C1 , not only have more economical results than those from Chen et al ., but also guarantee the QoS for clients. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.267 · 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