Practical Cloud-Edge Scheduling for Large-Scale Crowdsourced Live Streaming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even though conventional wisdom claims that in order to improve viewer engagement, the cloud-edge providers should serve the viewers with the nearest edge nodes, however, we show that doing this for crowdsourced live streaming (CLS) services can introduce significant costs inefficiency. In this paper, we first carry out large-scale measurement analysis by using the real-world service data from Huawei Cloud, a representative cloud-edge provider in China. We observe that the massive number of channels has proposed great burdens to the operating expenditure of the cloud-edge providers, and most importantly, unbalanced viewer distribution makes the edge nodes suffer significant costs inefficiency. To tackle the above concerns, we proposeAggCast, a novel CLS scheduling framework to optimize the edge node utilization for the cloud-edge provider. The core idea ofAggCastis to aggregate some viewers that are initially scattered on different regions, and assign them to fewer pre-selected nodes, thereby reducing bandwidth costs. In particular, by integrating the useful insights obtained from our large-scale measurement,AggCastcan not only ensure that quality of experience (QoS) does not suffer degradation, but also satisfy the systematic requirements of CLS services.AggCasthas been A/B tested and fully deployed. The online and trace-driven experiments show that, compared to the most prevalent method,AggCastsaves over 16.3%back-to-source(BTS) bandwidth costs while significantly improving QoS (startup latency, stall frequency and stall time are reduced over 12.3%, 4.57% and 3.91%, respectively).
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".