A tale of two erasure codes in HDFS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distributed storage systems are increasingly transition-ing to the use of erasure codes since they offer higher reliability at significantly lower storage costs than data replication. However, these codes tradeoff recovery per-formance as they require multiple disk reads and network transfers for reconstructing an unavailable data block. As a result, most existing systems use an erasure code either optimized for storage overhead or recovery performance. In this paper, we present HACFS, a new erasure-coded storage system that instead uses two different erasure codes and dynamically adapts to workload changes. It uses a fast code to optimize for recovery performance and a compact code to reduce the storage overhead. A novel conversion mechanism is used to efficiently up-code and downcode data blocks between fast and com-pact codes. We show that HACFS design techniques are generic and successfully apply it to two different code families: Product and LRC codes. We have implemented HACFS as an extension to the Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS) and experimen-tally evaluate it with five different workloads from pro-duction clusters. The HACFS system always maintains a low storage overhead and significantly improves the re-covery performance as compared to three popular single-code storage systems. It reduces the degraded read la-tency by up to 46%, and the reconstruction time and disk/network traffic by up to 45%. 1
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".