MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Evolution of Cloud Computing in ATLAS

2015· article· en· W2529253071 on OpenAlexaff
R. Taylor, F. Berghaus, F Brasolin, C Cordeiro, Ron Desmarais, Laurence Field, Ian Gable, Domenico Giordano, A. Di Girolamo, John Hover, M. LeBlanc, P. A. Love, Michael Paterson, Randall Sobie, Alexandr Zaytsev

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceDistributed computingGrid computingServerGridCloud testingData scienceCloud computing securityOperating systemGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ATLAS experiment at the LHC has successfully incorporated cloud computing technology and cloud resources into its primarily grid-based model of distributed computing. Cloud R&D activities continue to mature and transition into stable production systems, while ongoing evolutionary changes are still needed to adapt and refine the approaches used, in response to changes in prevailing cloud technology. In addition, completely new developments are needed to handle emerging requirements. This paper describes the overall evolution of cloud computing in ATLAS. The current status of the virtual machine (VM) management systems used for harnessing Infrastructure as a Service resources are discussed. Monitoring and accounting systems tailored for clouds are needed to complete the integration of cloud resources within ATLAS' distributed computing framework. We are developing and deploying new solutions to address the challenge of operation in a geographically distributed multi-cloud scenario, including a system for managing VM images across multiple clouds, a system for dynamic location-based discovery of caching proxy servers, and the usage of a data federation to unify the worldwide grid of storage elements into a single namespace and access point. The usage of the experiment's high level trigger farm for Monte Carlo production, in a specialized cloud environment, is presented. Finally, we evaluate and compare the performance of commercial clouds using several benchmarks.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207