feat: a couple extra slidesHEADmaster

5 files changed, 49 insertions, 9 deletions

diff --git a/images/alarms_vs_failures.pdf b/images/alarms_vs_failures.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9987232
--- /dev/null
+++ b/images/alarms_vs_failures.pdf
diff --git a/images/failure_models_table.png b/images/failure_models_table.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5ad3a85
--- /dev/null
+++ b/images/failure_models_table.png
diff --git a/indent.log b/indent.log
index cb97e07..2b112d6 100644
--- a/indent.log
+++ b/indent.log
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 INFO:  latexindent version 3.24.7, 2025-08-15, a script to indent .tex files
        latexindent lives here: /usr/share/texmf-dist/scripts/latexindent/
-       Sun Jun 28 09:25:22 2026
+       Sun Jun 28 19:02:38 2026
        Reading input from STDIN
 INFO:  Processing switches:
 INFO:  Directory for backup files and log file indent.log:
diff --git a/main.bib b/main.bib
index 5aebe34..9776bd1 100644
--- a/main.bib
+++ b/main.bib
@@ -711,3 +711,20 @@
         biburl = {https://dblp.org/rec/journals/fgcs/VersluisCGLPCUI23.bib},
         bibsource = {dblp computer science bibliography, https://dblp.org},
 }
+
+@article{DBLP:journals/jpdc/JavadiKIE13,
+        author = {Bahman Javadi and Derrick Kondo and Alexandru Iosup and Dick
+                  H. J. Epema},
+        title = {The Failure Trace Archive: Enabling the comparison of failure
+                 measurements and models of distributed systems},
+        journal = {J. Parallel Distributed Comput.},
+        volume = {73},
+        number = {8},
+        pages = {1208--1223},
+        year = {2013},
+        url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2013.04.002},
+        doi = {10.1016/J.JPDC.2013.04.002},
+        timestamp = {Sat, 22 Feb 2020 19:36:34 +0100},
+        biburl = {https://dblp.org/rec/journals/jpdc/JavadiKIE13.bib},
+        bibsource = {dblp computer science bibliography, https://dblp.org},
+}
diff --git a/main.tex b/main.tex
index d1b8bc0..444bd07 100644
--- a/main.tex
+++ b/main.tex
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
 
 \begin{frame}\frametitle{\textbf{RQ1}: Literature Review I}
 	\begin{tcolorbox}[title=Main Finding I]
-		The literature on DCDTs is sparse.
+		There is little literature on DCDTs.
 		Some systems barely classify as DTs (\emph{e.g.,} Kalibre~\cite{DBLP:conf/sensys/WangZD0TCWZ20}, ChatTwin~\cite{DBLP:conf/sensys/LiW0Z0T23}).
 		Existing deployments specialize in \textcolor{Red}{Cooling and Heat Modelling}, together with \textcolor{Red}{3D visualizations}.
 		Most lack predictive modelling of DC operations.
@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@
 
 	\tiny
 	\textbf{Figure 1.3:} To answer \textbf{RQ1} we designed a generic datacenter digital twin system model based on a comprehensive literature review and findings from \textbf{Table 1.1}. The \emph{Infrastructure Model} simulates the structure of the DC and the \emph{Operations Model} simulates the behaviour of the DC.
+	\emph{Note:} Federation is not included explicitly but is covered by the model.
 	% Consider splitting the figure into 2 a.k.a. top and bottom.
 	% By the AIAA definition, the DT mimicks the structure and behaviour.
 	% Data Lake -> Data Storage
@@ -98,6 +99,7 @@
 		\vspace{-0.15cm}
 		\tiny
 		\textbf{Figure 1.4:} The predictive datacenter digital twin reference architecture.
+		We call the system \emph{Sunfish}.
 		The architecture was designed with the \emph{AtLarge Design Process}~\cite{DBLP:conf/icdcs/IosupVTETBFMT19} over several iterations in the past months.
 		\vspace{0.2cm}
 	\end{minipage}
@@ -108,8 +110,8 @@
 		\end{center}
 		\vspace{-0.2cm}
 		\tiny
-		\textbf{Figure 1.5:} The prototype -- \emph{Sunfish}, and its components based on \textbf{Figure 1.4}.
-		The time-series data flows first to the \texttt{Grafana} dashboard, \texttt{PostgreSQL} database and \texttt{Redis} cache~\cite{DBLP:conf/sc/TaheriBPRHDEWPM24}.
+		\textbf{Figure 1.5:} The prototype and its components based on the architecture.
+		The time-series data flows first to the \texttt{Grafana} dashboard, \texttt{PostgreSQL} database and \texttt{Redis} cache as advised in ~\cite{DBLP:conf/sc/TaheriBPRHDEWPM24}.
 		\vspace{0.1cm}
 	\end{minipage}
 
@@ -262,8 +264,8 @@
 \begin{frame}\frametitle{Extra Slides: Technical Setup }
 	\begin{tcolorbox}[title=What is the simulation workload?]
 		The compute workload is BitBrainsSmall.
-		The failure traces include user reports from Gmail, WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter.
-		For predictions we use \texttt{prefabs}~\cite{DBLP:journals/fgcs/VersluisCGLPCUI23}.
+		The failure traces include Gmail, WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter.
+		For predictions we use different statistical distributions~\cite{DBLP:journals/fgcs/VersluisCGLPCUI23}.
 	\end{tcolorbox}
 	\begin{tcolorbox}[title=What is the experiment environment?]    A commodity laptop: Framework Laptop 13, with 32GB of DDR5 RAM and an AMD Ryzen 7840U processor and an ArchLinux OS with Linux 7.0.13-arch1-1 kernel.
 
@@ -282,6 +284,18 @@
 
 \end{frame}
 
+\begin{frame}\frametitle{Extra Slides: Experiment 1}
+	\begin{tcolorbox}[title=Clarification]
+		In experiment 1 we are able to differentiate between severe failures, that down more than some threshold $\tau$ hosts.
+		$\tau$ is determined using predictions based on potential distribution of failures, modeled with \textasciitilde\emph{N(1.5, 1.5)}.
+	\end{tcolorbox}
+
+	\begin{center}
+		\includegraphics[width=0.58\linewidth]{images/alarms_vs_failures.pdf}
+	\end{center}
+	\tiny
+	\textbf{Figure E.1:} The comparison between failures experienced and alarms raised.
+\end{frame}
 
 \begin{frame}\frametitle{Extra Slides: Why Digital Twinning?}
 	\begin{tcolorbox}[title=Definition]
@@ -312,11 +326,20 @@
 	\tiny \textbf{Figure E.3:} Real-time control that is tightly-coupled with the IT equipment is a prerequisite for timely predictions within seconds/minutes~\cite{DBLP:journals/computer/AthavaleBBMMPS24}.
 \end{frame}
 
-
-
+\begin{frame}\frametitle{Extra Slides: Experiment 2}
+	\begin{tcolorbox}[title=Statistical Distributions]
+		Different failure distributions were used in order to predict the true failure distribution.
+		\textbf{Table E.1} summarizes the distributions.
+	\end{tcolorbox}
+	\begin{center}
+		\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/failure_models_table.png}
+	\end{center}
+	\tiny
+	\textbf{Table E.1:} Different failure models used throughout this  project.
+	All failure models come from Javadi \etal (for a more thorough overview see~\cite{DBLP:journals/jpdc/JavadiKIE13})
+\end{frame}
 
 % Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) have high computation overhead, unsuitable for real-time simulation of a dynamic datacenter.
 %Moreover oftentimes a poorly configured CFD model can lead to high error rates~\cite{DBLP:conf/sensys/WangZD0TCWZ20}.
 %Data-driven Machine Learning performs poorly by the cases not covered in the training data.
-
 \end{document}