Detection of microservice‐based software anomalies based on OpenTracing in cloud
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
Summary Today, the noticeable tendency of the software industry to break large software projects into loosely coupled modules through a microservice‐based architecture is more than ever. This is because of advantages such as scalability, independence, smaller and faster deployments, improved fault isolation, and flexibility. On the other hand, it should be noted that with the growth of microservice architecture, new complexities have emerged. We need to have a mature DevOps team to handle the complexity involved in maintaining and supporting systems, namely functional and non‐functional monitoring (anomaly monitoring and detection). This challenge can lead to a lot of software development time being spent monitoring and identifying anomalies. Existing approaches are not accurate enough to identify anomalies, and if they are able to identify them, they are unable to identify the category of the anomaly. Our approach in this research is to use distributed tracing with the help of machine learning algorithms to identify performance anomalies, the exact location of each anomaly, and predict its category. In this research, we implemented a software based on microservice architecture and then created a variety of anomalies over time (e.g., physical resources, virtual resources, database, application) to be able to evaluate the proposed model. The resulting dataset is publicly available. Our simulation results show that the proposed model is able to accurately identify the anomalies with 98% accuracy and their category with 99% accuracy.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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