Towards traffic minimization for data placement in online social networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary With the increasing number of users and a huge scale of data, the service providers of Online Social Networks (OSNs) are facing the problem of how to place users' data to multiple servers. Key‐value stores solve the problem based on consistent hashing, and have become a defacto standard. However, random placement manner of hashing cannot preserve social locality, which leads to high intra‐data center traffic and unpredictable response time. Many existing works solve the problem by using graph partitioning algorithms. These works have two drawbacks: First, the social graph is constructed with ordinary pairwise graph that cannot fully reflect multi‐participant interactions often occurring in OSNs. Second, the underlying network topologies of data center have never been considered. This paper investigates the problem of traffic minimization for OSNs data storage. Motivated by maximally preserving both social locality and distance locality, we formulate the problem as two sub‐problems — hypergraph partitioning and partition‐to‐server mapping, and propose a two‐phase data placement (TDP) scheme. Specifically we present two algorithms to solve partition‐to‐server mapping over two widely used network topologies (i.e.,tree and BCube). Evaluations with a large scale Facebook trace show that TDP significantly reduces intra‐data center traffic as well as load balancing across servers. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".