MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EnLoB: Energy and Load Balancing-Driven Container Placement Strategy for Data Centers

2019· article· en· W3012462348 on OpenAlexaff
Kuljeet Kaur, Sahil Garg, Georges Kaddoum, François Gagnon, Dushantha Nalin K. Jayakody

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingLoad balancing (electrical power)Energy consumptionDistributed computingEfficient energy useWorkloadOperating systemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cloud data centers (DCs) can be aptly regarded as the epicenter of today's business and economy; which support seamless data processing, analysis, and storage. However, various studies advocate that the existing DCs are often underutilized. To be precise, almost 30% of the installed DCs in the United States are comatose. In addition to this, the existing DC architecture leads to extensive energy utilization, which severely hampers the environment and places a severe risk on the power sector. Thus, it is highly essential to reduce DC's energy utilization through efficient resource consolidation approaches. In this work, we investigate the joint impact of resource consolidation and load balancing on cutting down the energy utilization indices of the cloud DCs. In this vein, we formulate a multi-objective optimization problem (MOOP) for container placement across heterogeneous infrastructure, primarily with the intent to minimize the overall energy consumption and balance the load amongst the operating hosts. However, due to the hardness of the underlying problem and its infeasibility to furnish optimal solutions in polynomial time, we designed an online solution based on the incremental exploration of the solution space to map containers on the available array of hosts such that the objectives mentioned above can be attained. Finally, we evaluated the performance of the proposed algorithm in contrast to an existing algorithm on real-time workload traces obtained from PlanetLab. The obtained results confirm the superior performance of the proposed algorithm relative state-of-the-art.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207