Checkpoint interval optimisation for fault-tolerant cloud workloads
“At what checkpoint frequency does the overhead of saving state exceed the cost of re-running the lost work?”
Method: CloudSim simulation, failure-injection experiments
Final-year and postgraduate projects I am willing to supervise. Each topic below is a real problem with a defensible scope — not a title looking for a student.
Each written as a research question with a defensible scope — not a title looking for a student.
“At what checkpoint frequency does the overhead of saving state exceed the cost of re-running the lost work?”
Method: CloudSim simulation, failure-injection experiments
“Does chunk-level deduplication still pay for itself when upload bandwidth, not storage, is the binding constraint?”
Method: Trace-driven analysis on real file corpora
“Do indigenous providers meet their advertised uptime, measured independently over a full semester?”
Method: Longitudinal probing, statistical reporting
“What does a hybrid qualitative-quantitative risk model actually score when applied to a real campus network?”
Method: Field assessment, model instantiation
“Can asymmetric-signature multicast authentication run within the energy budget of a microcontroller node?”
Method: Hardware benchmarking
“Does the Pattern Cube Algorithm generalise to transaction streams — mobile money, POS, transport ticketing?”
Method: Algorithm adaptation, comparative benchmarking
“How much predictive signal survives when CDRs are aggregated to the privacy level operators are willing to release?”
Method: Feature engineering, supervised learning, ablation
“How accurately can citizens be matched across agency databases with inconsistent name spellings and no shared key?”
Method: Probabilistic record linkage, evaluation on synthetic registries
Six non-negotiable principles of working together.
A topic is a question that can be answered wrongly. If your proposal cannot fail, it is not a project.
Ten papers read properly beat a hundred skimmed. Bring an annotated bibliography to the second meeting.
If a number appears in your report, the script that produced it must exist and must run again. Keep a metrics file under version control.
If your proposed method loses to the baseline, report it, explain it, and defend it. That is a stronger project than a suspiciously perfect table.
One page: what you did, what broke, what you will do next. Meetings are for the parts writing cannot resolve.
Fabricated data, ghost-written text and undisclosed tool use end the supervision relationship. There is no second conversation.
Answered here so we do not spend the first meeting on logistics.
Send a one-page note: the topic that interests you, why, and what you have already read. Allocation still follows departmental process, but a prepared note tells me who to argue for.
Yes, and I prefer it. It must state a question, a method, and how you will know whether you succeeded.
Fortnightly by default, weekly in the final six weeks, plus written updates in between.
Departmental template, IEEE-style citations, every figure numbered and referenced in text, and a reproducibility appendix listing seeds, versions and runtimes.
For learning, debugging and editing — yes, and say so. For generating results, analysis or prose you then sign as your own — no.
Sir, you spent four years teaching me that a system is only as good as its behaviour when something breaks. I built this site with the same principle in mind: it should remain useful when connectivity is poor and when parts of the interface are unavailable.
The site brings the available academic record together in one place. Where a detail could not be confirmed, it is marked rather than presented as fact.
— Faith Akinola Boyejo