MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cost-Effective Cloud Resource Provisioning Using Linear Regression

2024· article· en· W4406522758 on OpenAlexaff
Saira Musa, Douglas G. Down

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProvisioningCloud computingComputer scienceLinear regressionResource (disambiguation)Operating systemMachine learningComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the era of cloud computing, accessing virtual computing resources has become increasingly convenient for users to meet their demands. Cloud providers offer two primary payment plans for virtual resource provisioning: reservation and on-demand. The reservation plan requires users to reserve resources and pay upfront, making it more cost-effective for long-term requirements despite demand uncertainty. Conversely, the on-demand plan charges based on actual resource usage, making it more expensive but suitable for short-term needs. Efficient resource provisioning is crucial to balance user demands and costs, as inefficient provisioning can lead to high costs. A key challenge is determining the optimal number of resources to reserve to accommodate uncertain demands while minimizing costs. This paper addresses the resource reservation problem in cloud environments by focusing on the optimal reservation of virtual machines (VMs). We propose a linear regression approach that fits a linear function to features such as past demands and previously reserved instances that are still available to determine the quantity of VMs to reserve. Our model assigns specific weights to these features to predict required reserved instances, minimizing the overall cost, including both the expense of reserving resources and renting additional on-demand resources as needed. Our evaluation, based on real standard workload traces, demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach in achieving cost-efficient resource provisioning, reducing the total cost by efficiently balancing reserved and on-demand 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207