TailCutter: Wisely Cutting Tail Latency in Cloud CDNs Under Cost Constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cloud computing platforms enable applications to offer low-latency services to users by deploying data storage in multiple geo-distributed data centers. In this paper, through benchmark measurements on Amazon AWS and Microsoft Azure together with an analysis of a large-scale dataset collected from a major cloud CDN provider, we identify the high tail latency problem in cloud CDNs, which can substantially undermine the efficacy of cloud CDNs. One crucial idea to reduce the tail latency is to send requests in parallel to multiple clouds in cloud CDNs. However, since application providers often have a budget for using cloud services, deciding how many chunks to download from each cloud and when to download chunks in a cost-efficient manner still remain as open problems in our concerned scenario. To address the problem, we present TailCutter, a workload scheduling framework that aims at optimizing the tail latency while meeting cost constraints given by application providers. Specifically, we formulate the tail latency minimization (TLM) problem in cloud CDNs and design the receding horizon control based maximum tail minimization algorithm (RHC-based MTMA) to efficiently solve the TLM problem in practice. We implement TailCutter across multiple data centers of Amazon AWS and Microsoft Azure. Extensive evaluations using a large-scale real-world data trace (collected from a major ISP) illustrate that TailCutter can reduce up to 58.9% of the 100th-percentile user-perceived latency, as compared with alternative solutions under the cost constraint.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".