Methodological Principles for Reproducible Performance Evaluation in Cloud Computing
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
The rapid adoption and the diversification of cloud computing technology exacerbate the importance of a sound experimental methodology for this domain. This work investigates how to measure and report performance in the cloud, and how well the cloud research community is already doing it. We propose a set of eight important methodological principles that combine best-practices from nearby fields with concepts applicable only to clouds, and with new ideas about the time-accuracy trade-off. We show how these principles are applicable using a practical use-case experiment. To this end, we analyze the ability of the newly released SPEC Cloud IaaS benchmark to follow the principles, and showcase real-world experimental studies in common cloud environments that meet the principles. Last, we report on a systematic literature review including top conferences and journals in the field, from 2012 to 2017, analyzing if the practice of reporting cloud performance measurements follows the proposed eight principles. Worryingly, this systematic survey and the subsequent two-round human reviews, reveal that few of the published studies follow the eight experimental principles. We conclude that, although these important principles are simple and basic, the cloud community is yet to adopt them broadly to deliver sound measurement of cloud environments.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it