Zebra: Demand-aware erasure coding for distributed storage systems
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 increasingly replacing replication in distributed storage systems, thanks to its lower storage overhead with the same level of failure tolerance. However, with lower storage overhead, the reconstruction overhead of erasure codes can increase significantly as well. Under the ever-changing workload, in which the data access can be highly skewed, it is difficult to achieve a well trade-off between the storage overhead and the reconstruction overhead. In this paper, we propose Zebra, a framework that encodes data into multiple tiers by their demand. Given the overall storage overhead and the number of failures to tolerate, Zebra determines the parameters of erasure coding in each tier by solving a geometric programming problem. Based on the demand of data, Zebra can dynamically assign data into the corresponding tiers to minimize the overall reconstruction overhead, and achieve a flexible tradeoff between the storage overhead and the reconstruction overhead in multiple tiers, such that hot data can enjoy less overhead of reconstruction and cold data can be stored with lower storage overhead. When demand changes, Zebra can adjust itself accordingly with a marginal amount of network transfer.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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