Analysis of Job Failure and Prediction Model for Cloud Computing Using Machine Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern applications, such as smart cities, home automation, and eHealth, demand a new approach to improve cloud application dependability and availability. Due to the enormous scope and diversity of the cloud environment, most cloud services, including hardware and software, have encountered failures. In this study, we first analyze and characterize the behaviour of failed and completed jobs using publicly accessible traces. We have designed and developed a failure prediction model to determine failed jobs before they occur. The proposed model aims to enhance resource consumption and cloud application efficiency. Based on three publicly available traces: the Google cluster, Mustang, and Trinity, we evaluate the proposed model. In addition, the traces were also subjected to various machine learning models to find the most accurate one. Our results indicate a significant correlation between unsuccessful tasks and requested resources. The evaluation results also revealed that our model has high precision, recall, and F1-score. Several solutions, such as predicting job failure, developing scheduling algorithms, changing priority policies, or limiting re-submission of tasks, can improve the reliability and availability of cloud services.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it