MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015860851 · doi:10.1109/tnet.2020.2981977

Fast Switch-Based Load Balancer Considering Application Server States

2020· article· en· W3015860851 on OpenAlexaff
Jiao Zhang, Shubo Wen, Jinsheng Zhang, Hua Chai, Tian Pan, Tao Huang, Linquan Zhang, Yunjie Liu, F. Richard Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsServerLatency (audio)Computer scienceLoad balancing (electrical power)Load managementComputer networkOperating systemDistributed computingReal-time computingEngineeringGridTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-scale services are generally hosted on multiple application servers to scale out in today's data centers. Load balancers distribute users' requests across these servers. Software load balancer and switch-based load balancer are two typical classes of load balancers. However, most of the existing mechanisms either exhibit high processing latency at load balancers or likely lead to unbalanced requests distribution without considering the disparity of the application servers. In this paper, we study how the disparity of application servers significantly impacts the response time of requests. A fast switch-based Load Balancer considering Application Server states (LBAS) then is proposed to minimize the processing latency at both load balancers and application servers. The data plane of LBAS is well designed to store millions of connections in limited storage capacity without violating per-connection consistency. Besides, a partial dynamic weighting algorithm based on the Ridge Regression theory is designed and implemented to decrease the processing latency at application servers. We implement LBAS using the P4 programming language and conduct a series of extensive experiments to evaluate the performance. The results demonstrate that the proposed LBAS mechanism significantly reduces the response time of requests compared with Uniform random, Static weight, and Spotlight in various scenarios.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/ACM Transactions on NetworkingSame topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207