Performance Modeling of Metric-Based Serverless Computing Platforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analytical performance models are very effective in ensuring the quality of service and cost of service deployment remain desirable under different conditions and workloads. While various analytical performance models have been proposed for previous paradigms in cloud computing, serverless computing lacks such models that can provide developers with performance guarantees. Besides, most serverless computing platforms still require developers' input to specify the configuration for their deployment that could affect both the performance and cost of their deployment, without providing them with any direct and immediate feedback. In previous studies, we built such performance models for steady-state and transient analysis of scale-per-request serverless computing platforms (e.g., AWS Lambda, Azure Functions, Google Cloud Functions) that could give developers immediate feedback about the quality of service and cost of their deployments. In this work, we aim to develop analytical performance models for the latest trend in serverless computing platforms that use concurrency value and the rate of requests per second for autoscaling decisions. Examples of such serverless computing platforms are Knative and Google Cloud Run (a managed Knative service by Google). The proposed performance model can help developers and providers predict the performance and cost of deployments with different configurations which could help them tune the configuration toward the best outcome. We validate the applicability and accuracy of the proposed performance model by extensive real-world experimentation on Knative and show that our performance model is able to accurately predict the steady-state characteristics of a given workload with minimal amount of data collection.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".