Evaluating the Cloud for Capability Class Leadership Workloads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cloud platforms offer a variety of benefits that are very appealing for a large scale HPC facility with a diverse and dynamic user base and workload set. At the same time, there is cause for concern about transitioning to the cloud. Incorporating cloud resources into existing HPC facilities or even fully transitioning to a cloud deployment poses significant challenges at the technical, organizational, and economic levels. Regardless, based on current trends it is highly likely that cloud platforms will become an integral component of many HPC centers in some form. To gain a better understanding of both the limitations and capabilities of current cloud infrastructures we evaluated the public offerings of the three leading cloud platforms (Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform) using a selection of representative application workloads from our facility. Our findings show that while current HPC offerings are still nascent, significant progress is being made to address the present shortcomings. At the same time, significant challenges and questions remain about whether HPC cloud offerings will be able to deliver the full range of expected benefits.
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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".