MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982686855 · doi:10.1109/icnp.2019.8888042

Congestion Control for Cross-Datacenter Networks

2019· article· en· W2982686855 on OpenAlexaff
Gaoxiong Zeng, Wei Bai, Ge Chen, Kai Chen, Dongsu Han, Yibo Zhu, Lei Cui

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkTestbedNetwork congestionPacket lossTCP Westwood plusData centerLatency (audio)Network packetTCP VegasCUBIC TCPReal-time computingLinux kernelCloud computingWide area networkH-TCPTCP Friendly Rate ControlTCP tuningOperating systemTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geographically distributed applications hosted on cloud are becoming prevalent. They run on cross-datacenter network that consists of multiple data center networks (DCNs) connected by a wide area network (WAN). Such a cross-DC network imposes significant challenges in transport design because the DCN and WAN segments have vastly distinct characteristics (e.g., butter depths, RTTs). In this paper, we find that existing DCN or WAN transports reacting to ECN or delay alone do not (and cannot be extended to) work well for such an environment. The key reason is that neither of the signals, by itself, can simultaneously capture the location and degree of congestion. This is due to the discrepancies between DCN and WAN. Motivated by this, we present the design and implementation of GEMINI that strategically integrates both ECN and delay signals for cross-DC congestion control. To achieve low latency, GEMINI bounds the inter-DC latency with delay signal and prevents the intra-DC packet loss with ECN. To maintain high throughput, GEMINI modulates the window dynamics and maintains low butter occupancy utilizing both congestion signals. GEMINI is implemented in Linux kernel and evaluated by extensive testbed experiments. Results show that GEMINI achieves up to 53%, 31% and 76% reduction of small flow average completion times compared to TCP Cubic, DCTCP and BBR; and up to 58% reduction of large flow average completion times compared to TCP Vegas.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations41
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5GFrench-language works237,207