DedupT: Deduplication for tape systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deduplication is a commonly-used technique on disk-based storage pools. However, deduplication has not been used for tape-based pools: tape characteristics, such as high mount and seek times combined with data fragmentation resulting from deduplication create a toxic combination that leads to unacceptably high retrieval times. This work proposes DedupT, a system that efficiently supports deduplication on tape pools. This paper (i) details the main challenges to enable efficient deduplication on tape libraries, (ii) presents a class of solutions based on graph-modeling of similarity between data items that enables efficient placement on tapes; and (iii) presents the design and evaluation of novel cross-tape and on-tape chunk placement algorithms that alleviate tape mount time overhead and reduce on-tape data fragmentation. Using 4.5 TB of real-world workloads, we show that DedupT retains at least 95% of the deduplication efficiency. We show that DedupT mitigates major retrieval time overheads, and, due to reading less data, is able to offer better restore performance compared to the case of restoring non-deduplicated data.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".