- ![616.pdf](../assets/616_1729005527705_0.pdf)
- **Review**
  **Technical Innovation **
  	* [ ] 1 - Routine work, untested technical work or impractical idea
  	* [ ] 2 - Good work, not particularly novel, akin to a routine evolution of existing technologies
  	* [x] 3 - Good technical work with some novel features described
  	* [ ] 4 - Very innovative technical work that demonstrates clear thought leadership for HPE
  	* [ ] 5 - Clearly a breakthrough with significant technical innovation
  
  **Business Impact**
  	* [ ] 1 - Impractical idea; limited business value
  	* [ ] 2 - Good work, but with limited direct or indirect business value, no clear path to capture business value+
  	* [x] 3 - Moderate business impact that merits further assessment
  	* [ ] 4 - Work will provide HPE with valuable and meaningful differentiation in the market
  	* [ ] 5 - Clearly and significant impacts HPE’s business, opens new market opportunities
  
  **Clarity of Presentation**
  	* [ ] 1 - Difficult to understand; confusing; incomplete description; very short
  	* [ ] 2 - Hard to follow; uses unfamiliar terminology or acronyms; missing important data
  	* [ ] 3 - Understandable but lacking some relevant information
  	* [x] 4 - Clear and logical; some important information is missing or unclear
  	* [ ] 5 - Very clearly described; logical flow; well supported with practical results and proof points
  
  **Overall Recommendation**
  	* [ ] 1 - Reject
  	* [ ] 2 - Weak Reject
  	* [ ] 3 - Weak Accept
  	* [x] 4 - Accept
  	* [ ] 5 - Strong Accept
  
  **Suggested Presentation Style**
  *What type of presentation do you recommend for this submission?*
  	* [x] Formal Session
  	* [ ] Poster Session
  	* [ ] Not recommended for presentation
  
  **Favorite**
  	* [X] No
  	* [ ] Yes
  
  **Reviewer Confidence**
  	* [ ] 1 - No confidence - I am not qualified to pass judgement on this submission
  	* [ ] 2 - Low confidence - I do not have enough experience in this area to make a definitive decision on this submission
  	* [ ] 3 - Somewhat confident - I have a reasonable understanding of this research area
  	* [x] 4 - Confident - I have considerable confidence in my review and understanding of this work
  	* [ ] 5 - Very Confident - I am confident in my review and understanding of the work
  
  **Comments for the Authors**
  *Provide constructive comments to the author(s).*
- The author(s) outline a challenge associated with FaaS/Container-based computing, where there is significant overprovisioning of resources both on a per process and cluster-wide scale. The solution proposed looks to provide a predictive scaling system (instead of the traditional load/reactive scalers).
- I have to applaud the author(s) scientific and experimental approach to this problem - I found the experimental data in the evidence section fascinating, and it showed a healthly level if self-critique of the approach.
- Overall I think the approach is sound and when coupled with sensible cool-down timers, lower limits, etc could provide significant benefits in large scale systems.
-
- While the paper could be clearer, this is a good idea that deserves further exploration. I would be interested to see an exploration of how this services scales and any latency this may introduce.
  **Comments for the Program Committee (authors will not see these comments)**
  *Provide comments to the PC (if any) that should not be shared with the author(s).*
  An interesting paper. I think the author(s) did a great job of balancing the amount of detail given about the proposal whilst providing significant space to the evidence section. I would love to see more papers that show significant evidence (where available) instead of the single paragraph most provide - can we update the submission guidance to encourage this?