MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171837867 · doi:10.1109/isnetcod.2011.5978915

Pipelined Regeneration with Regenerating Codes for Distributed Storage Systems

2011· article· en· W2171837867 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
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegeneration (biology)Computer scienceRedundancy (engineering)Process (computing)Distributed data storeData redundancyComputer data storageComputer networkDistributed computingDatabaseComputer hardwareOperating systemBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distributed storage systems store a substantial amount of data and maintain data integrity by storing redundancy in a large number of storage nodes. When storage nodes fail, the lost data should be regenerated on replacement nodes. Regenerating codes minimize the volume of network traffic brought by the regeneration process. However, regenerating codes consume less traffic by requiring a larger number of nodes participating in the regeneration process. In this paper, we propose a new pipelined regeneration process for regenerating codes, that enables the system to consume a smaller amount of network traffic during the regeneration without engaging a large number of participating nodes. Moreover, the time spent during the regeneration can be further saved, while the data integrity can still be maintained no worse than the conventional regeneration process with regenerating codes.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Data Storage TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207