A Framework of Hypergraph-Based Data Placement Among Geo-Distributed Datacenters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data-intensive applications need to address the problem of properly placing the set of data items in geo-distributed storage nodes. Traditional techniques use the hashing method to achieve the load balance among nodes such as those used in Hadoop and Cassandra, but are not efficient for the requests reading multiple data items in one transaction, especially when the source locations of requests are also distributed. Some recent papers proposed the managed data placement schemes for online social networks, but have a limited scope of applications due to their focuses. We propose a general hypergraph-based data placement framework, which considers both the performance metrics related to the co-location of associated data and those related to the exact location of fulfilling each requested data item. In the framework, we present the methods to convert the optimization objectives into hypergraph models and employ a hypergraph partitioning to efficiently partition the set of data items and place them in distributed nodes. Further, we extend the scheme into replica placement where we need to find multiple locations to place the replicas of the same data item. Through extensive experiments based on trace-based datasets, we evaluate the performance of the proposed framework and demonstrate its effectiveness.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".