MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998799629 · doi:10.1109/dsn.2012.6263919

Practical scrubbing: Getting to the bad sector at the right time

2012· article· en· W1998799629 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Storage Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMicrosoft Research
KeywordsData scrubbingComputer scienceThroughputWorkloadScrubberOperating systemEngineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Latent sector errors (LSEs) are a common hard disk failure mode, where disk sectors become inaccessible while the rest of the disk remains unaffected. To protect against LSEs, commercial storage systems use scrubbers: background processes verifying disk data. The efficiency of different scrubbing algorithms in detecting LSEs has been studied in depth; however, no attempts have been made to evaluate or mitigate the impact of scrubbing on application performance. We provide the first known evaluation of the performance impact of different scrubbing policies in implementation, including guidelines on implementing a scrubber. To lessen this impact, we present an approach giving conclusive answers to the questions: when should scrubbing requests be issued, and at what size, to minimize impact and maximize scrubbing throughput for a given workload. Our approach achieves six times more throughput, and up to three orders of magnitude less slowdown than the default Linux I/O scheduler.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Data Storage TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207