MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adaptive Deadlock Detection and Resolution in Real-Time Distributed Environments

2017· article· en· W2786219394 on OpenAlexaff
Waqar Haque, Matthew C. Fontaine, Adam Vezina

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDistributed computingWorkloadDeadlock prevention algorithmsConcurrency controlTransaction processingDistributed transactionProtocol (science)Overhead (engineering)DeadlockDatabase transactionReal-time computingComputer networkOperating systemDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In real-time distributed transaction processing, deadlocks must be detected and resolved. Timeouts are not a viable option because they lead to lost work and missed deadlines. We have proposed a suite of deadlock detection protocols and a resolution protocol which carry a varying degree of (generally low) overhead. The protocols behave differently under varying load conditions and transaction characteristics. Further, the invocation period of these protocols can be controlled to improve performance when the overhead tends to become large. The performance of these protocols has been demonstrated using a distributed real-time transaction processing simulator which provides an interactive interface to set parameters, and also has provisions to select from a variety of concurrency control, priority assignment, workload distribution and other protocols. The impact of transaction workload, underlying system configuration, resource availability, detection rates, and congestion on each of the proposed protocols is observed and presented. In general, the multi-cycle detection protocol demonstrated the most superior performance over a broad range of parameters. The results presented in this paper were obtained from over 147,000 simulations.

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 score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207