Reducing access latency in erasure coded cloud storage with local block migration
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Erasure coding has been applied in many cloud storage systems to enhance reliability at a lower storage cost than replication. While a large amount of prior work aims to enhance recovery performance and reliability, the overall access delay in coded storage still needs to be optimized. As most production systems adopt a systematic code and place the original copy of each block on only one server to be read normally, it is harder to balance server loads and more likely to incur latency tails in coded storage than in three-way replication, where a block can be read from any of the 3 servers storing the block. In this paper, we propose to reduce the access latency in coded storage systems by moving blocks with anti-correlated demands onto same servers for statistical load balancing. We formulate the optimal block placement as a problem similar to Min-k-Partition, propose a local block migration scheme, and derive an approximation ratio as a function of demand variation across blocks. Based on request traces from Windows Azure Storage, we demonstrate that our scheme can significantly reduce the access latency with only a few block moves, especially when the request demand is skewed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it