MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416255079 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.19287

The Case for Time-Shared Computing Resources

2025· preprint· en· W4416255079 on OpenAlexafffund
Pierre Jacquet, Adrien Luxey

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGreen IT and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersMitacs
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Cloud computingKey (lock)Resource (disambiguation)State (computer science)Resource efficiencyEmerging technologiesVirtual machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The environmental impact of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) continues to grow, driven notably by increasing usage, rebound effects, and emerging demands. However, despite the virtual nature of its services, the sector remains inherently constrained by its materiality and cannot rely on an infinite pool of resources. As a result, the wide variety of supported services may need to be managed under stricter limits within hosting facilities in the future. Contrary to common assumptions, we show that tenants typically do not share computing resources, even in environments commonly perceived as mutualized, such as cloud platforms. Time-sharing has been progressively phased out for reasons of performance, security, predictability, and, perhaps more importantly, due to the decreasing cost of computing resources. This paper advocates for managing fewer physical resources by improving resource sharing between tenants. It represents a paradigm shift, moving beyond traditional time-sharing at the hardware level to a higher abstraction. This approach entails "doing with fewer resources" under conditions of "reduced performance". Nonetheless, enhancing the mutualization of infrastructure can reduce cluster sizes (through consolidation) and improve energy efficiency, with gains related to the accepted performance trade-off, a situation potentially more socially acceptable than eliminating services. We review the current state of the art, identify challenges and opportunities, propose interpretations of Time-Shared Computing, and outline key research directions.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.827

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicGreen IT and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207