Latency-Aware Task Scheduling in Software-Defined Edge and Cloud Computing With Erasure-Coded Storage Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The collaborative edge and cloud computing system has emerged as a promising solution to fulfill the unprecedented high requirements of 5G application scenarios. Due to vendor variations, it is often difficult to manage hardware facilities in such a collaborative system. Moreover, the amount of data generated and tasks requested by end devices are increasing exponentially, which introduces storage and computation bottlenecks. To address these issues, a novel systematic framework called software-defined edge and cloud computing (SD-ECC) is designed to manage the underlying physical resources of edge and cloud layers via software. SD-ECC is combined with an erasure-coded storage system, for which a task scheduling problem is formulated by considering data access and task processing steps. Then, a joint data access and task processing (JDATP) algorithm is proposed to minimize the task response time including data access latency and task processing latency. A practical SD-ECC platform is developed on OpenStack, OpenDaylight, and Kubernetes to conduct experiments with real-world datasets. The experimental results demonstrate that our proposed JDATP algorithm can reduce 20.87% of the task response time and increase 14.16% of the remaining storage space on average by comparing it with alternative schemes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".