Workload-Aware CPU Performance Scaling for Transactional Database Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural short term fluctuations in the load of transactional data systems present an opportunity for power savings. For example, a system handling 1000 requests per second on average can expect more than 1000 requests in some seconds, fewer in others. By quickly adjusting processing capacity to match such fluctuations, power consumption can be reduced. Many systems do this already, using dynamic voltage and frequency scaling (DVFS) to reduce processor performance and power consumption when the load is low. DVFS is typically controlled by frequency governors in the operating system, or by the processor itself. In this paper, we show that transactional database systems can manage DVFS more effectively than the underlying operating system. This is because the database system has more information about the workload, and more control over that workload, than is available to the operating system. We present a technique called POLARIS for reducing the power consumption of transactional database systems. POLARIS directly manages processor DVFS and controls database transaction scheduling. Its goal is to minimize power consumption while ensuring the transactions are completed within a specified latency target. POLARIS is workload-aware, and can accommodate concurrent workloads with different characteristics and latency budgets. We show that POLARIS can simultaneously reduce power consumption and reduce missed latency targets, relative to operating-system-based DVFS governors.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".