Distributed Module Placement Using Communication-Aware Co-Location

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing distributed host systems face inefficiencies due to increased latency and resource waste from modules hosted on geographically distant servers, with conventional load balancing techniques failing to dynamically improve performance while maintaining reliability.

Innovation Solution

A system orchestrator monitors communication characteristics and server utilizations to determine optimal co-location and relocation of modules using an optimization model, enabling dynamic management of module locations to reduce latency and conserve resources.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If modules are hosted on geographically distant servers to distribute workload, then resource utilization is improved, but communication latency increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveresource utilizationVSAvoidcommunication latency

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically determines module locations by evaluating communication rates and utilization metrics in real-time, allowing the architecture to adapt between distributed and co-located configurations based on operational needs rather than using a fixed deployment strategy

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system monitors communication characteristics between modules and uses this feedback to determine optimal co-location decisions, creating a closed-loop control system that continuously optimizes the balance between resource distribution and communication efficiency

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

2Speed

If modules are co-located on the same server rack to reduce latency, then communication speed is improved, but resource flexibility decreases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecommunication speedVSAvoidresource flexibility

Core Design Contradiction:

SpeedVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system provides dynamic control over module placement by evaluating multiple factors including communication rates and utilization metrics, enabling the architecture to flexibly adjust co-location decisions based on changing operational requirements rather than using static placement rules

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

3Reliability

If conventional load balancing techniques are used to distribute modules, then system reliability is maintained, but performance optimization is insufficient

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesystem reliabilityVSAvoidperformance optimization

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system enhances conventional load balancing by incorporating feedback loops that monitor communication characteristics between modules and dynamically adjust placement decisions to optimize performance while maintaining reliability through utilization-based criteria

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The system introduces new optimization parameters beyond traditional load balancing metrics, specifically evaluating communication rates and utilization metrics to determine optimal module placement, thereby achieving both reliability and performance optimization

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentUS12568137B2Dynamic management of locations of modules of a platform hosted by a distributed system

Publication Date: 2026.03.03 CAPITAL ONE SERVICES LLC

AI summary

In some implementations, a system may monitor session data associated with a first module and a second module of a platform. The system may determine a rate of communication between the first module and the second module based on the session data. The system may determine, using an optimization model, a co-location score associated with the first module and the second module based on the rate of communication, wherein the co-location score indicates an impact of co-location of the first module and the second module. The system may determine that the co-location score satisfies a co-location score threshold associated with an improvement to an operation of the platform. The system may perform an action associated with co-locating the first module and the second module.