MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2365345367 · doi:10.1109/isit.2016.7541297

On storage allocation for maximum service rate in distributed storage systems

2016· preprint· en· W2365345367 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
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Storage Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProbabilistic logicReplication (statistics)Service (business)Distributed data storeExponential distributionComputer data storageAccess timeDistributed computingStorage efficiencyComputer networkDatabaseOperating systemMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Storage allocation affects important performance measures of distributed storage systems. Most previous studies on the storage allocation consider its effect separately either on the success of the data recovery or on the service rate (time) where it is assumed that no access failure happens in the system. In this paper, we go one step further and incorporate the access model and the success of data recovery into the service rate analysis. In particular, we focus on quasi-uniform storage allocation and provide a service rate analysis for both fixed-size and probabilistic access models at the nodes. Using this analysis, we then show that for the case of exponential waiting time distribution at individuals storage nodes, minimal spreading allocation results in the highest system service rate for both access models. This means that for a given storage budget, replication provides a better service rate than a coded storage solution.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Data Storage TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207