MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152102944 · doi:10.14778/2536354.2536355

Hybrid storage management for database systems

2013· article· en· W2152102944 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

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Storage Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDatabaseWorkloadStorage managementData stripingComputer data storageFlash (photography)Operating systemDistributed computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of flash-based solid state drives (SSDs) in storage systems is growing. Adding SSDs to a storage system not only raises the question of how to manage the SSDs, but also raises the question of whether current buffer pool algorithms will still work effectively. We are interested in the use of hybrid storage systems, consisting of SSDs and hard disk drives (HDDs), for database management. We present cost-aware replacement algorithms, which are aware of the difference in performance between SSDs and HDDs, for both the DBMS buffer pool and the SSDs. In hybrid storage systems, the physical access pattern to the SSDs depends on the management of the DBMS buffer pool. We studied the impact of buffer pool caching policies on SSD access patterns. Based on these studies, we designed a cost-adjusted caching policy to effectively manage the SSD. We implemented these algorithms in MySQL's InnoDB storage engine and used the TPC-C workload to demonstrate that these cost-aware algorithms outperform previous algorithms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.213 · 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