MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988688088 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2017/77

Scalable Constraint-based Virtual Data Center Allocation

2017· article· en· W2988688088 on OpenAlexafffund
Sam Bayless, Nodir Kodirov, Ivan Beschastnikh, Holger H. Hoos, Alan J. Hu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityData centerServerDistributed computingNetwork topologyBandwidth (computing)Constraint (computer-aided design)SolverComputer networkDatabaseEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constraint-based techniques can solve challenging problems arising from highly diverse applications. This paper considers the problem of virtual data center (VDC) allocation, an important, emerging challenge for modern data center operators. To solve this problem, we introduce NETSOLVER, which is based on the general-purpose constraint solver MONOSAT. NETSOLVER represents a major improvement over existing approaches: it is sound, complete, and scalable, providing support for end-to-end, multi-path bandwidth guarantees across all the layers of hosting infrastructure, from servers to top-of-rack switches to aggregation switches to access routers. NETSOLVER scales to realistic data center sizes and VDC topologies, typically requiring just seconds to allocate VDCs of 5–15 virtual machines to physical data centers with 1000+ servers, maintaining this efficiency even when the data center is nearly saturated. In many cases, NETSOLVER can allocate 150%−300% as many total VDCs to the same physical data center as previous methods. Essential to our solution efficiency is our formulation of VDC allocation using monotonic theories, illustrating the practical value of the recently proposed SAT modulo monotonic theories approach.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.282
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
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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