Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Nandini Natarajan

dblp:73/4121 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2001
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Computer networks · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer networks
1 paper
Content delivery and video streaming · 67% Network measurement and analytics · 33%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Network measurement and analytics
network performance measurement
0.012001
Evaluation of a Novel Two-Step Server Selection Metric · ICNP 2001
Content delivery and video streaming › server selection
replica selection
0.012001
Evaluation of a Novel Two-Step Server Selection Metric · ICNP 2001
Content delivery and video streaming
server selection
0.012001
Evaluation of a Novel Two-Step Server Selection Metric · ICNP 2001

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

trace-driven evaluation · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2001 Evaluation of a Novel Two-Step Server Selection Metric
abstract
Choosing the best-performing server for a particular client from a group of replicated proxies is a difficult task. We offer a novel, two-step technique for server selection that chooses a small subset of five servers, and isolates testing to that subset for ten days. We present an empirical evaluation of both our method and previously proposed metrics based on traces to 193 commercial proxies. We show that our technique performs better than any of the other metrics we studied -often one to two seconds better for a one-megabyte file-while requiring considerably less work over time. Metrics such as round-trip time and tests using small files usually select servers that are two to three times worse than the best server. Network-layer metrics such as minimizing router and autonomous system count poorly predict which server provides the best performance. These metrics often select servers with transfer times four to six times that of the best-performing server.
Katrina M. Hanna, Nandini Natarajan, Brian Neil Levine
ICNP2