MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138516546 · doi:10.1109/tsg.2021.3125275

Power Modeling for Effective Datacenter Planning and Compute Management

2021· preprint· en· W3138516546 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ana Radovanović, Bokan Chen, Saurav Talukdar, Binz Roy, Alexandre Duarte, Mahya Shahbazi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Smart Grid · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGoogle
KeywordsWorkloadComputer scienceScalabilityCloud computingServerScope (computer science)Power managementVariety (cybernetics)Key (lock)Distributed computingPower (physics)Range (aeronautics)Real-time computingReliability engineeringDatabaseArtificial intelligenceOperating systemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past decade, there has been a global growth in datacenter capacity, power consumption and the associated costs. Accurate mapping of datacenter resource usage (CPU, RAM, etc.) and hardware configurations (servers, accelerators, etc.) to its power consumption is necessary for efficient long-term infrastructure planning and real-time compute load management. This paper presents two types of statistical power models that relate CPU usage of Google’s Power Distribution Units (PDUs, commonly referred to as power domains) to their power consumption. The models are deployed in production and are used for cost- and carbon-aware load management, power provisioning and infrastructure rightsizing. They are simple, interpretable and exhibit uniformly high prediction accuracy in modeling power domains with large diversity of hardware configurations and workload types across Google fleet. A multi-year validation of the deployed models demonstrate that they can predict power with less than 5% Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE) for more than 95% diverse PDUs across Google fleet. This performance matches the best reported accuracies coming from studies that focus on specific workload types, hardware platforms and, typically, more complex statistical models.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Smart GridSame topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207