MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035880569 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13676

Auto-Scaling Techniques for Clouds Processing Requests with Service Level Agreements

2019· dissertation· en· W3035880569 on OpenAlexaff
Anshuman Biswas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadCloud computingProvisioningComputer scienceProfit (economics)Distributed computingResource (disambiguation)Service levelDatabaseComputer networkOperating systemBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Auto-scaling mechanisms allow applications running on Cloud environments to maintain a guaranteed Quality of Service while efficiently utilizing resources and keeping operational costs low for the service providers.However, creating such an auto-scaling framework may be challenging due to the need to precisely estimate resource usage while the workload patterns vary significantly.The research presented in this thesis focuses on automatic provisioning of compute resources in the Cloud performed by an intermediary enterprise for a single client enterprise.The enterprise hosting a broker uses techniques for dynamically controlling the number of resources used by the client enterprise.The research introduces three autoscaling techniques: a reactive, a proactive and a hybrid technique.These techniques allow resources to be scaled based on user demand.The primary goal of these auto-scaling techniques is to achieve a profit for the intermediary enterprise while maintaining the desired grade of service for the client enterprise.A secondary goal is to generate a lower cost for the client enterprise in comparison to the situation in which the client acquires resources directly from the cloud provider.The techniques support both on-demand requests as well as requests with service level agreements (SLAs).The effectiveness of the proposed auto-scaling techniques is demonstrated through experiments performed on proof of concept prototypes and simulations.The experimental results show that for a number of different combinations of system and workload parameters experimented with, the proposed algorithms lead to a significant broker profit and a lower user cost in comparison to a conventional non-autoscaling system.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207