MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025834744 · doi:10.1145/2796314.2745894

Online Electricity Cost Saving Algorithms for Co-Location Data Centers

2015· article· en· W3025834744 on OpenAlexafffund
Linquan Zhang, Zongpeng Li, Chuan Wu, Shaolei Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates - Technology FuturesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCompetitive analysisComputer scienceBiddingOnline algorithmData centerElectricityMinificationCloud computingAlgorithmApproximation algorithmMathematical optimizationUpper and lower boundsEconomicsMicroeconomicsComputer networkMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work studies the online electricity cost minimization problem at a co-location data center. A co-location data center serves multiple tenants who rent the physical infrastructure within the data center to run their respective cloud computing services. Consequently, the co-location operator has no direct control over power consumption of its tenants, and an efficient mechanism is desired for eliciting desirable consumption patterns from the co-location tenants. Electricity billing faced by a data center is nowadays based on both the total volume consumed and the peak consumption rate. This leads to an interesting new combinatorial optimization structure on the electricity cost optimization problem, which also exhibits an online nature due to the definition of peak consumption. We model and solve the problem through two approaches: the pricing approach and the auction approach. For the former, we design an offline 2-approximation algorithm as well as an online algorithm with a small competitive ratio in most practical settings. For the latter, we design an efficient (2+ c )-competitive online algorithm, where c is a system dependent parameter close to 1.49, and then convert it into an efficient mechanism that executes in an online fashion, runs in polynomial time, and guarantees truthful bidding and (2+2 c )-competitive in social cost.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation ReviewSame topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207