EdgePlace: Availability‐aware placement for chained mobile edge applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mobile edge computing (MEC) literally pushes cloud computing from remote datacenters to the life radius of end users. By leveraging the widely adopted European Telecommunications Standards Institute network function virtualization architecture, MEC provisions elastic and resilient mobile edge applications with proximity. Typical MEC virtualization infrastructure allows a configurable placement policy to deploy mobile edge applications as virtual machines (VMs): affinity can be used to put VMs on the same host for inter‐VM networking performance, whereas anti‐affinity is to separate VMs for high availability. In this paper, we propose a novel model to track the availability and cost impact from placement policy changes of the mobile edge applications. We formulate our model as a stochastic programming problem. To minimize the complexity challenge, we also propose a heuristic algorithm called EdgePlace. With our model, the unit resource cost increases when there are less resources left on a host. Applying affinity would take up more resources of the host but saves network bandwidth cost because of colocation. When enforcing anti‐affinity, experimental results show increases of both availability and interhost network bandwidth cost. For applications with different resource requirements, our model is able to find their sweet points with the consideration of both resource cost and application availability, which is vital in a less robust MEC environment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".