Model-Based Comparison of Cloud-Edge Computing Resource Allocation Policies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The rapid and widespread adoption of internet of things-related services advances the development of the cloud-edge framework, including multiple cloud datacenters (CDCs) and edge micro-datacenters (EDCs). This paper aims to apply analytical modeling techniques to assess the effectiveness of cloud-edge computing resource allocation policies from the perspective of improving the performance of cloud-edge service. We focus on two types of physical device (PD)-allocation policies that define how to select a PD from a CDC/EDC for service provision. The first is randomly selecting a PD, denoted as RandAvail. The other is denoted as SEQ, in which an available idle PD is selected to serve client requests only after the waiting queues of all busy PDs are full. We first present the models in the case of an On–Off request arrival process and verify the approximate accuracy of the proposed models through simulations. Then, we apply analytical models for comparing RandAvail and SEQ policies, in terms of request rejection probability and mean response time, under various system parameter settings.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it