Elascale: Autoscaling and Monitoring as a Service
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Auto-scalability has become an evident feature for cloud software systems including but not limited to big data and IoT applications. Cloud application providers now are in full control over their applications' microservices and macroservices; virtual machines and containers can be provisioned or deprovisioned on demand at runtime. Elascale strives to adjust both micro/macro resources with respect to workload and changes in the internal state of the whole application stack. Elascale leverages Elasticsearch stack for collection, analysis and storage of performance metrics. Elascale then uses its default scaling engine to elastically adapt the managed application. Extendibility is guaranteed through provider, schema, plug-in and policy elements in the Elascale by which flexible scalability algorithms, including both reactive and proactive techniques, can be designed and implemented for various technologies, infrastructures and software stacks. In this paper, we present the architecture and initial implementation of Elascale; an instance will be leveraged to add auto-scalability to a generic IoT application. Due to zero dependency to the target software system, Elascale can be leveraged to provide auto-scalability and monitoring as-a-service for any type of cloud software system.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it