Assessing data deduplication trade-offs from an energy and performance perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The energy costs of running computer systems are a growing concern: for large data centers, recent estimates put these costs higher than the cost of hardware itself. As a consequence, energy efficiency has become a pervasive theme for designing, deploying, and operating computer systems. This paper evaluates the energy trade-offs brought by data deduplication in distributed storage systems. Depending on the workload, deduplication can enable a lower storage footprint, reduce the I/O pressure on the storage system, and reduce network traffic, at the cost of increased computational overhead. From an energy perspective, data deduplication enables a trade-off between the energy consumed for additional computation and the energy saved by lower storage and network load. The main point our experiments and model bring home is the following: while for non energy-proportional machines performance- and energy-centric optimizations have break-even points that are relatively close, for the newer generation of energy proportional machines the break-even points are significantly different. An important consequence of this difference is that, with newer systems, there are higher energy inefficiencies when the system is optimized for performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".