Total Cost of Ownership and Evaluation of Google Cloud Resources for the ATLAS Experiment at the LHC
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
Abstract The ATLAS Google Project was established as part of an ongoing evaluation of the use of commercial clouds by the ATLAS Collaboration, in anticipation of the potential future adoption of such resources by WLCG grid sites to fulfil or complement their computing pledges. Seamless integration of Google cloud resources into the worldwide ATLAS distributed computing infrastructure was achieved at large scale and for an extended period of time, and hence cloud resources are shown to be an effective mechanism to provide additional, flexible computing capacity to ATLAS. For the first time a total cost of ownership analysis has been performed, to identify the dominant cost drivers and explore effective mechanisms for cost control. Network usage significantly impacts the costs of certain ATLAS workflows, underscoring the importance of implementing such mechanisms. Resource bursting has been successfully demonstrated, whilst exposing the true cost of this type of activity. A follow-up to the project is underway to investigate methods for improving the integration of cloud resources in data-intensive distributed computing environments and reducing costs related to network connectivity, which represents the primary expense when extensively utilising cloud resources.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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