MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401176895 · doi:10.1145/3651890.3672245

Uniform-Cost Multi-Path Routing for Reconfigurable Data Center Networks

2024· article· en· W4401176895 on OpenAlexaff
Jialong Li, Haotian Gong, Federico De Marchi, Aoyu Gong, Yiming Lei, Wei Bai, Yiting Xia

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRouting (electronic design automation)Data centerPath (computing)Computer networkCenter (category theory)Equal-cost multi-path routingLink-state routing protocolDistributed computingRouting protocol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reconfigurable data center networks (RDCNs) are arising as a promising data center network (DCN) design in the post-Moore's law era. However, the constantly reconfigured network topology in RDCNs invalidates the assumption of using hop count as the cost metric for routing, e.g., the status quo Equal-Cost Multi-Path routing (ECMP) in traditional DCNs. Unfortunately, existing routing solutions in RDCNs stick to the old assumption and deliver suboptimal performance either high in latency or low in bandwidth efficiency. In this paper, we redefine the cost metric for RDCN routing with uniform cost to unify the effects of topology disruption and hop count on latency and bandwidth efficiency. We propose Uniform-Cost Multi-Path routing (UCMP), an ECMP equivalent for RDCNs, where minimizing uniform cost leads flows of various sizes to the right balance between latency and bandwidth efficiency. Our simulation shows that UCMP achieves 53% to 98% lower flow completion time (FCT) and 1.55× bandwidth efficiency compared to the state-of-the-art RDCN routing strategy, and our testbed implementation demonstrates sustainable switch resource usage of UCMP as RDCNs scale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5GFrench-language works237,207