Performance modeling of cloud computing centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cloud computing is a general term for system architectures that involves delivering hosted services over the Internet, made possible by significant innovations in virtualization and distributed computing, as well as improved access to high-speed Internet. A cloud service differs from traditional hosting in three principal aspects. First, it is provided on demand, typically by the minute or the hour; second, it is elastic since the user can have as much or as little of a service as they want at any given time; and third, the service is fully managed by the provider—user needs little more than computer and Internet access. Typically a contract is negotiated and agreed between a customer and a service provider; the service provider is required to execute service requests from a customer within negotiated quality of service (QoS) requirements for a given price. Due to dynamic nature of cloud environments, diversity of user's requests, resource virtualization, and time dependency of load, provides expected quality of service while avoiding over-provisioning is not a simple task. To this end, cloud provider must have efficient and accurate techniques for performance evaluation of cloud computing centers. The development of such techniques is the focus of this thesis. This thesis has two parts. In first part, Chapters 2, 3 and 4, monolithic performance models are developed for cloud computing performance analysis. We begin with Poisson task arrivals, generally distributed service times, and a large number of physical servers. Later on, we extend our model to include finite buffer capacity, batch task arrivals, and virtualized servers with a large number of virtual machines in each physical machine. However, a monolithic model may suffer from intractability and poor scalability due to large number of parameters. Therefore, in the second part of the thesis (Chapters 5 and 6) we develop and evaluate tractable functional performance sub-models for different servicing steps in a complex cloud center and the overall solution obtains by iteration over individual sub-model solutions. We also extend the proposed interacting analytical sub-models to capture other important aspects including pool management, power consumption, resource assigning process and virtual machine deployment of nowadays cloud centers. Finally, a performance model suitable for cloud computing centers with heterogeneous requests and resources using interacting stochastic models is proposed and evaluated.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".