MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973903283 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/201921407035

Quasi-online accounting and monitoring system for distributed clouds

2019· article· en· W2973903283 on OpenAlexaff
Rolf Seuster, F. Berghaus, Kevin Casteels, Colson Driemel, M. Ebert, Colin Leavett-Brown, Michael Paterson, R. Sobie

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingUploadComputer scienceAccounting information systemOperating systemPayload (computing)DatabaseData centerSoftwareVirtual machineWorld Wide WebComputer securityAccountingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The HEP group at the University of Victoria operates a distributed cloud computing system for the ATLAS and Belle II experiments. The system uses private and commercial clouds in North America and Europe that run OpenStack, Open Nebula or commercial cloud software. It is critical that we record accounting information to give credit to cloud owners and to verify our use of commercial resources. We want to record the number of CPU-hours of the virtual machine. We continuously collect the CPU usage and an estimate of the HEPSpec06 units of the VM obtained during the boot of the VM and uploads it into an Elastic Search database. The information is processed and published as soon as it is available. The data is published in tables and plots in Kibana and as a cross check in ROOT. We have found the system to be useful beyond gathering accounting information and can be used for monitoring and diagnostic purposes. For example, we can use it to detect if the payload jobs are stuck in a waiting state for external information. We will report on the design and performance of the system, and show how it provides important accounting and monitoring information on a large distributed system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207