Predicting Node Failures in an Ultra-Large-Scale Cloud Computing Platform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many software services today are hosted on cloud computing platforms, such as Amazon EC2, due to many benefits like reduced operational costs. However, node failures in these platforms can impact the availability of their hosted services and potentially lead to large financial losses. Predicting node failures before they actually occur is crucial, as it enables DevOps engineers to minimize their impact by performing preventative actions. However, such predictions are hard due to many challenges like the enormous size of the monitoring data and the complexity of the failure symptoms. AIOps ( A rtificial I ntelligence for IT Op eration s ), a recently introduced approach in DevOps, leverages data analytics and machine learning to improve the quality of computing platforms in a cost-effective manner. However, the successful adoption of such AIOps solutions requires much more than a top-performing machine learning model. Instead, AIOps solutions must be trustable, interpretable, maintainable, scalable, and evaluated in context. To cope with these challenges, in this article we report our process of building an AIOps solution for predicting node failures for an ultra-large-scale cloud computing platform at Alibaba. We expect our experiences to be of value to researchers and practitioners, who are interested in building and maintaining AIOps solutions for large-scale cloud computing platforms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".