MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980652599 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.250

A Predictive Workload Balancing Algorithm in Cloud Services

2019· article· en· W2980652599 on OpenAlexafffund
Mahdee Jodayree, Mahmoud Abaza, Qing Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsAthabasca UniversityMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceCloudSimWorkloadCloud computingLoad balancing (electrical power)Distributed computingResource allocationAlgorithmOperating systemComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Performance of dynamic clouds depends on the efficiency of its load balancing and resource allocation. This paper is an exploratory study on the predictive approach for dynamic resource distribution of cloud services. Efficient cloud resource management can be achieved by simulating cloud services based on the predictions of incoming workloads, which can be more efficient than static allocation methods. This paper introduces a rule-based workload-balancing algorithm based on the predictions of an end-to-end system called Cicada. A simulation of cloud services can be achieved by a cloud service simulator called CloudSim and it will be used to achieve an algorithm with lower computational demand and a faster workload balancing. The final result will demonstrate the effectiveness of a predictive workload balancing approach that can achieve faster workload balancing with a lower computational power usage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia Computer ScienceSame topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207