AI Writing Tools

Explore the best AI Writing Tools — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step how-to guides, curated by Aizhi.

• 

  PerfKitBenchmarker

  PerfKit Benchmarker is an open source benchmarking tool used to measure and compare cloud offerings. PerfKit Benchmarker is licensed under the Apache 2 license terms. PerfKit Benchmarker is a community effort involving over 500 participants including researchers, academic institutions and companies together with the originator, Google. == General == PerfKit Benchmarker (PKB) is a community effort to deliver a repeatable, consistent, and open way of measuring Cloud Performance. It supports a growing list of cloud providers including: Alibaba Cloud, Amazon Web Services, CloudStack, DigitalOcean, Google Cloud Platform, Kubernetes, Microsoft Azure, OpenStack, Rackspace, IBM Bluemix (Softlayer). In addition to Cloud Providers to supports container orchestration including Kubernetes [1] and Mesos [2] and local "static" workstations and clusters of computers [3]. The goal is to create an open source living benchmark [framework] that represents how Cloud developers are building applications, evaluating Cloud alternatives, learning how to architect applications for each cloud. Living because it will change and morph quickly as developers change. PerfKit Benchmarker measures the end to end time to provision resources in the cloud, in addition to reporting on the most standard metrics of peak performance, e.g.: latency, throughput, time-to-complete, IOPS. PerfKit Benchmarker reduces the complexity in running benchmarks on supported cloud providers by unified and simple commands. It's designed to operate via vendor provided command line tools. PerfKit Benchmarker contains a canonical set of public benchmarks. All benchmarks are running with default/initial state and configuration (Not tuned to in favor of any providers). This provides a way to benchmark across cloud platforms, while getting a transparent view of application throughput, latency, variance, and overhead. == History == PerfKit Benchmarker (PKB) was started by Anthony F. Voellm, Alain Hamel, and Eric Hankland at Google in 2014. Once an initial "alpha" was in place Anthony F. Voellm and Ivan Santa Maria Filho built a community including ARM, Broadcom, Canonical, CenturyLink, Cisco, CloudHarmony, CloudSpectator, EcoCloud@EPFL, Intel, Mellanox, Microsoft, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Rackspace, Red Hat, Tradeworx Inc., and Thesys Technologies LLC. This community worked together behind the scenes in a private GitHub project to create an open way to measure cloud performance. This community released the first public "beta" was released on February 11, 2015, and announced in a blog post at which point the GitHub project was open to everyone. After almost a year and with large adaption (600+ participants on GitHub) the V1.0.0 was released along with a detailed architectural design on December 10, 2015. == Benchmarks == A list of available benchmarks from PerfKitBenchmarker: (The latest set of benchmarks can be found at GitHub readme file.) == Industry participants == Since Google open sourced the PerfKitBenchmarker, it became a community effort from over 30 leading researchers, academic schools and industry companies. Those organizations include: ARM, Broadcom, Canonical, CenturyLink, Cisco, CloudHarmony, Cloud Spectator, EcoCloud@EPFL, Intel, Mellanox, Microsoft, Qualcomm Technologies, Rackspace, Red Hat, and Thesys Technologies. In addition, Stanford and MIT are leading quarterly discussions on default benchmarks and settings proposed by the community. EcoCloud@EPFL is integrating CloudSuite into PerfKit Benchmarker. == Example runs == On Google Cloud Platform On AWS On Azure On Rackspace On a local machine

  Read more →
• 

  Virtual facility

  A Virtual Facility (VF) is a highly realistic digital representation of a data center, used to model all relevant aspects of a physical data center with a high degree of precision. The term "virtual" in Virtual Facility refers to its use of virtual reality, rather than the abstraction of computer resources as seen in platform virtualization. The VF mirrors the characteristics of a physical facility over time and allows for detailed analysis and modeling. == VF Model features == A standard VF model includes: Three-dimensional physical facility layout Network connectivity of facility equipment Full inventory of facility equipment, including electronics and electrical systems such as power distribution units (PDUs) and uninterruptible power supplies (UPSs) Full air conditioning system (ACUs) and controls within the room The term Virtual Facility was introduced to address the emerging environmental problems facing modern Mission Critical Facilities (MCFs). This concept combines virtual reality (VR), computer simulation, and expert systems applied to the domain of facilities. The VF type of computer simulation allows for detailed analysis and prototyping of airflow in the data center using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) techniques. This enables the visualization and numerical analysis of airflow and temperatures within the facility, helping to predict real-world outcomes. == VF applications == The VF model can be used to assist with the following: Greenfield design Asset management Troubleshooting existing data centers Making existing data centers more resilient Making existing data centers more energy efficient Cost prediction Staff training Capacity planning Load growth management Many organizations use VF models to virtually assess scenarios before committing resources to physical changes. This allows for better decision-making regarding the addition or modification of equipment, helping to avoid logistical or thermal problems.

  Read more →
• 

  Uncertain database

  An uncertain database is a kind of database studied in database theory. The goal of uncertain databases is to manage information on which there is some uncertainty. Uncertain databases make it possible to explicitly represent and manage uncertainty on the data, usually in a succinct way. == Formal definition == At the basis of uncertain databases is the notion of possible world. Specifically, a possible world of an uncertain database is a (certain) database which is one of the possible realizations of the uncertain database. A given uncertain database typically has more than one, and potentially infinitely many, possible worlds. A formalism to represent uncertain databases then explains how to succinctly represent a set of possible worlds into one uncertain database. == Types of uncertain databases == Uncertain database models differ in how they represent and quantify these possible worlds: Incomplete databases are a compact representation of the set of possible worlds – the use of NULL in SQL, arguably the most commonplace instantiation of uncertain databases, is an example of incomplete database model. Probabilistic databases are a compact representation of a probability distribution over the set of possible worlds. Fuzzy databases are a compact representation of a fuzzy set of the possible worlds. Though mostly studied in the relational setting, uncertain database models can also be defined in other relational models such as graph databases or XML databases. === Incomplete database === The most common database model is the relational model. Multiple incomplete database models have been defined over the relational model, that form extensions to the relational algebra. These have been called Imieliński–Lipski algebras: Relations with NULL values, also called Codd tables c-tables v-tables === Example === The following table is a relation of an incomplete database, described in the formalism of NULL values: There are infinitely many possible worlds for this incomplete database, obtained by replacing the "NULL" values with concrete values. For instance, the following relation is a possible world:

  Read more →
• 

  Bibliographic database

  A bibliographic database is a database of bibliographic records. This is an organised online collection of references to published written works like journal and newspaper articles, conference proceedings, reports, government and legal publications, patents and books. In contrast to library catalogue entries, a majority of the records in bibliographic databases describe articles and conference papers rather than complete monographs, and they generally contain very rich subject descriptions in the form of keywords, subject classification terms, or abstracts. A bibliographic database may cover a wide range of topics or one academic field like computer science. A significant number of bibliographic databases are marketed under a trade name by licensing agreement from vendors, or directly from their makers: the indexing and abstracting services. Many bibliographic databases have evolved into digital libraries, providing the full text of the organised contents:for instance CORE also organises and mirrors scholarly articles and OurResearch develops a search engine for open access content in Unpaywall. Others merge with non-bibliographic and scholarly databases to create more complete disciplinary search engine systems, such as Chemical Abstracts or Entrez. == History == Prior to the mid-20th century, individuals searching for published literature had to rely on printed bibliographic indexes, generated manually from index cards. During the early 1960s computers were used to digitize text for the first time; the purpose was to reduce the cost and time required to publish two American abstracting journals, the Index Medicus of the National Library of Medicine and the Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). By the late 1960s, such bodies of digitized alphanumeric information, known as bibliographic and numeric databases, constituted a new type of information resource. Online interactive retrieval became commercially viable in the early 1970s over private telecommunications networks. The first services offered a few databases of indexes and abstracts of scholarly literature. These databases contained bibliographic descriptions of journal articles that were searchable by keywords in author and title, and sometimes by journal name or subject heading. The user interfaces were crude, the access was expensive, and searching was done by librarians on behalf of "end users".

  Read more →
• 

  Content Security Policy

  Content Security Policy (CSP) is a computer security standard introduced to prevent cross-site scripting (XSS), clickjacking and other code injection attacks resulting from execution of malicious content in the trusted web page context. It is a Candidate Recommendation of the W3C working group on Web Application Security, widely supported by modern web browsers. CSP provides a standard method for website owners to declare approved origins of content that browsers should be allowed to load on that website—covered types are JavaScript, CSS, HTML frames, web workers, fonts, images, embeddable objects such as Java applets, ActiveX, audio and video files, and other HTML5 features. == Status == The standard, originally named Content Restrictions, was proposed by Robert Hansen in 2004, first implemented in Firefox 4 and quickly picked up by other browsers. Version 1 of the standard was published in 2012 as W3C candidate recommendation and quickly with further versions (Level 2) published in 2014. As of 2023, the draft of Level 3 is being developed with the new features being quickly adopted by the web browsers. The following header names are in use as part of experimental CSP implementations: Content-Security-Policy – standard header name proposed by the W3C document. Google Chrome supports this as of version 25. Firefox supports this as of version 23, released on 6 August 2013. WebKit supports this as of version 528 (nightly build). Chromium-based Microsoft Edge support is similar to Chrome's. X-WebKit-CSP – deprecated, experimental header introduced into Google Chrome, Safari and other WebKit-based web browsers in 2011. X-Content-Security-Policy – deprecated, experimental header introduced in Gecko 2 based browsers (Firefox 4 to Firefox 22, Thunderbird 3.3, SeaMonkey 2.1). A website can declare multiple CSP headers, also mixing enforcement and report-only ones. Each header will be processed separately by the browser. CSP can also be delivered within the HTML code using a meta tag, although in this case its effectiveness will be limited. Internet Explorer 10 and Internet Explorer 11 also support CSP, but only sandbox directive, using the experimental X-Content-Security-Policy header. A number of web application frameworks support CSP, for example AngularJS (natively) and Django (middleware). Instructions for Ruby on Rails have been posted by GitHub. Web framework support is however only required if the CSP contents somehow depend on the web application's state—such as usage of the nonce origin. Otherwise, the CSP is rather static and can be delivered from web application tiers above the application, for example on load balancer or web server. === Bypasses === In December 2015 and December 2016, a few methods of bypassing 'nonce' allowlisting origins were published. In January 2016, another method was published, which leverages server-wide CSP allowlisting to exploit old and vulnerable versions of JavaScript libraries hosted at the same server (frequent case with CDN servers). In May 2017 one more method was published to bypass CSP using web application frameworks code. == Mode of operation == If the Content-Security-Policy header is present in the server response, a compliant client enforces the declarative allowlist policy. One example goal of a policy is a stricter execution mode for JavaScript in order to prevent certain cross-site scripting attacks. In practice this means that a number of features are disabled by default: Inline JavaScript code