StratusPM: An Analytical Performance Model for Cloud Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several planning and performance analysis tools and techniques are available to execute sophisticated "what-if" analysis, in order to dynamically reconfigure cloud applications, modify them, and update their adaptation policies. However, in order to utilize these tools and techniques, appropriate analytical models for such cloud software systems must first be built. Constructing such models is difficult, as it requires the knowledge of: (i) the architecture of the system (i.e., deployment model), (ii) the specifications of the platform, (iii) the behavior of the application at runtime, and (iv) the formalism and notations of the target analytical model. This is further complicated in the cloud due to: (i) the fluid nature of the cloud application models and platforms, (ii) the large number of platform providers, and (iii) the successive upgrade to the underlying platforms. In our previous research work, we developed an architectural framework and a modeling language for the cloud configuration space called StratusML. This paper aims at extending StratusML to support generating analytical performance models for cloud applications by reusing the information used to configure the platform for the deployment and the operation. We show through an example, how to use StratusPM to model cloud performance and how the new extension can help reducing the efforts needed to specify analytical performance models for cloud applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".