MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217549043 · doi:10.1145/3493651.3493667

BIAS Autoscaler

2021· article· en· W3217549043 on OpenAlexaff
Jaime Dantas, Hamzeh Khazaei, Marin Litoiu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceWorkloadCrowdsQueueing theoryDistributed computingQuality of serviceService providerCloud service providerService (business)Computer networkOperating systemComputer securityCloud computing security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burstable instances have recently been introduced by cloud providers as a cost-efficient alternative to customers that do not require powerful machines for running their workloads. Unlike conventional instances, the CPU capacity of burstable instances is rate limited, but they can be boosted to their full capacity for small periods when needed. Currently, the majority of cloud providers offer this option as a cheaper solution for their clients. However, little research has been done on the practical usage of these CPU-limited instances. In this paper, we present a novel autoscaling solution that uses burstable instances along with regular instances to handle the queueing arising in traffic and flash crowds. We design BIAS Autoscaler, a state-of-the-art framework that leverages burstable and regular instances for cost-efficient autoscaling and evaluate it on the Google Cloud Platform. We apply our framework to a real-world microservice workload, and conduct extensive experimental evaluations using Google Compute Engines. Experimental results show that BIAS Autoscaler can reduce the overall cost up to 25% and increase resource efficiency by 42% while maintaining the same service quality observed when using conventional instances only.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207