MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547023114 · doi:10.1145/3005745.3005748

Network Monitoring as a Streaming Analytics Problem

2016· article· en· W2547023114 on OpenAlexaff
Arpit Gupta, Rüdiger Birkner, Marco Canini, Nick Feamster, Chris Mac-Stoker, Walter Willinger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersHorizon 2020Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaEuropean CommissionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceStream processingScalabilityNetwork packetAnalyticsTupleQuery planData streamData stream miningComputer networkReal-time computingDistributed computingSargableDatabaseData miningSearch engineWeb search queryInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Programmable switches potentially make it easier to perform flexible network monitoring queries at line rate, and scalable stream processors make it possible to fuse data streams to answer more sophisticated queries about the network in real-time. However, processing such network monitoring queries at high traffic rates requires both the switches and the stream processors to filter the traffic iteratively and adaptively so as to extract only that traffic that is of interest to the query at hand. While the realization that network monitoring is a streaming analytics problem has been made earlier, our main contribution in this paper is the design and implementation of Sonata, a closed-loop system that enables network operators to perform streaming analytics for network monitoring applications at scale. To achieve this objective, Sonata allows operators to express a network monitoring query by considering each packet as a tuple. More importantly, Sonata allows them to partition the query across both the switches and the stream processor, and through iterative refinement, Sonata's runtime attempts to extract only the traffic that pertains to the query, thus ensuring that the stream processor can scale to satisfy a large number of queries for traffic at very high rates. We show with a simple example query involving DNS reflection attacks and traffic traces from one of the world's largest IXPs that Sonata can capture 95% of all traffic pertaining to the query, while reducing the overall data rate by a factor of about 400 and the number of required counters by four orders of magnitude.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations53
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5GFrench-language works237,207