Optimizing the Performance of Containerized Cloud Software Systems Using Adaptive PID Controllers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Control theory has proven to be a practical approach for the design and implementation of controllers, which does not inherit the problems of non-control theoretic controllers due to its strong mathematical background. State-of-the-art auto-scaling controllers suffer from one or more of the following limitations: (1) lack of a reliable performance model, (2) using a performance model with low scalability, tractability, or fidelity, (3) being application- or architecture-specific leading to low extendability, and (4) no guarantee on their efficiency. Consequently, in this article, we strive to mitigate these problems by leveraging an adaptive controller, which is composed of a neural network as the performance model and a Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller as the scaling engine. More specifically, we design, implement, and analyze different flavours of these adaptive and non-adaptive controllers, and we compare and contrast them against each other to find the most suitable one for managing containerized cloud software systems at runtime. The controller’s objective is to maintain the response time of the controlled software system in a pre-defined range, and meeting the Service-level Agreements, while leading to efficient resource provisioning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".