Towards VM Consolidation Using a Hierarchy of Idle States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Typical VM consolidation approaches re-pack VMs into fewer physical machines, resulting in energy and cost savings [13, 19, 23, 40]. Recent work has explored a just-in time approach to VM consolidation by transitioning VMsto an inactive state when idle and activating them on the arrival of client requests[17, 21]. This leads to increased VM density at the cost of an increase in client request latency (called miss penalty ). The VM density so obtained, although greater, is still limited by the number of VMs that can be hosted in the one inactive state. If idle VMs were hosted in multiple inactive states, VM density can be increased further while ensuring small miss penalties. However, VMs in different inactive states have different capacities, activation times, and resource requirements. Therefore, a key question is: How should VMs be transitioned between different states to minimize the expected miss penalty? This paper explores the hosting of idle VMs in a hierarchy of multiple such inactive states, and studies the effect of different idle VMmanagement policies on VMdensity and miss penalties. We formulate a mathematical model for the problem, and provide a theoretical lower bound on the miss penalty. Using an off-the-shelf virtualization solution (LXC [2]), we demonstrate how the required model parameters can be obtained. We evaluate a variety of policies and quantify their miss penalties for different VM densities. We observe that some policies consolidate up to 550 VMs per machine with average miss penalties smaller than 1 ms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".