Large-Scale Measurements and Optimizations on Latency in Edge Clouds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of next-generation latency-critical applications places strict requirements on network latency and stability. Edge cloud, an instantiated paradigm for edge computing, is gaining more and more attention due to its benefits of low latency. In this work, we make an in-depth investigation into the network QoS, especially end-to-end latency, at both spatial and temporal dimensions on a nationwide edge computing platform. Through the measurements, we collect a multi-variable large-scale real-world dataset on latency. We then quantify how the spatial-temporal factors affect the end-to-end latency, and verify the predictability of end-to-end latency. The results reveal the limitation of centralized clouds and illustrate how could edge clouds provide low and stable latency. Our results also point out that existing edge clouds merely increase the density of servers and ignore spatial-temporal factors, so they still suffer from high latency and fluctuations. Based on a quantified latency impact factor, we have proposed several optimization strategies for edge cloud latency and validated their effectiveness. We also propose a robust prototype edge cloud model based on lessons we learn from the measurement and evaluate its performance in the production environment. Evaluation result shows that edge clouds achieve 84.1% latency reduction with 0.5 ms latency fluctuation and 73.3% QoS improvement compared with the centralized clouds.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".