Dynamic Cloud Resource Allocation Considering Demand Uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cloud computing provisions scalable resources for high performance industrial applications. Cloud providers usually offer two types of usage plans: reserved and on-demand. Reserved plans offer cheaper resources for long-term contracts while on-demand plans are available for short or long periods but are more expensive. To satisfy incoming user demands with reasonable costs, cloud resources should be allocated efficiently. Most existing works focus on either cheaper solutions with reserved resources that may lead to under-provisioning or over-provisioning, or costly solutions with on-demand resources. Since inefficiency of allocating cloud resources can cause huge provisioning costs and fluctuation in cloud demand, resource allocation becomes a highly challenging problem. In this paper, we propose a hybrid method to allocate cloud resources according to the dynamic user demands. This method is developed as a two-phase algorithm that consists of reservation and dynamic provision phases. In this way, we minimize the total deployment cost by formulating each phase as an optimization problem while satisfying quality of service. Due to the uncertain nature of cloud demands, we develop a stochastic optimization approach by modeling user demands as random variables. Our algorithm is evaluated using different experiments and the results show its efficiency in dynamically allocating cloud resources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".