Client-Centric Benchmarking of Eventual Consistency for Cloud Storage Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eventually-consistent key-value storage systems sacrifice the ACID semantics of conventional databases to achieve superior latency and availability. However, this means that client applications, and hence end-users, can be exposed to stale data. The degree of staleness observed depends on various tuning knobs set by application developers (customers of key-value stores) and system administrators (providers of key-value stores). Both parties must be cognizant of how these tuning knobs affect the consistency observed by client applications in the interest of both providing the best end-user experience and maximizing revenues for storage providers. Quantifying consistency in a meaningful way is a critical step toward both understanding what clients actually observe, and supporting consistency-aware service level agreements (SLAs) in next generation storage systems. This paper proposes a novel consistency metric called Gamma that captures client-observed consistency. This metric provides quantitative answers to questions regarding observed consistency anomalies, such as how often they occur and how bad they are when they do occur. We argue that Gamma is more useful and accurate than existing metrics. We also apply Gamma to benchmark the popular Cassandra key-value store. Our experiments demonstrate that Gamma is sensitive to both the workload and client-level tuning knobs, and is preferable to existing techniques which focus on worst-case behavior.
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".