MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2577618861 · doi:10.1109/ism.2016.0124

Datacenter Traffic Shaping for Delay Reduction in Cloud Gaming

2016· article· en· W2577618861 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam Amiri, Hussein Al Osman, Shervin Shirmohammadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingJitterBandwidth (computing)Computer networkQuality of serviceNetwork packetBandwidth allocationDynamic bandwidth allocationQuality of experienceNetwork delayReal-time computingTelecommunicationsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cloud Gaming enables users to play games using a thin-client, regardless of their location or what platform they use (PCs, laptops, tablets, smartphones). Since the major computational parts of game processing are performed in datacenters, effectively assigning the resources (e.g. memory, bandwidth) to gaming sessions plays a key role in providing a high quality gaming experience to end-users. In this paper, we propose a traffic policing and shaping method using the Software Defined Networking (SDN) paradigm to solve the bandwidth allocation problem in cloud gaming datacenter networks. Our proposed method considers the current status of the datacenter paths in terms of remaining bandwidth and delay to achieve fair bandwidth allocation. The proposed scheme optimizes bandwidth utilization while ensuring compliance with the threshold of tolerable delay in cloud gaming systems. Our experimental results show that the proposed method improves bandwidth utilization and reduces end-to-end delay and delay variation (jitter) by almost 12% and 9%, respectively, without engendering additional packet loss compared to a representative conventional method: Equal Cost Multi-path (ECMP). These reductions lead to improvements in players' gaming experience.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207