Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we design and implement a cooperative shingle-aware file system, called CosaFS , on heterogeneous storage devices that mix solid-state drives (SSDs) and shingled magnetic recording (SMR) technology to improve the overall performance of storage systems. The basic idea of CosaFS is to classify objects as hot or cold objects based on a proposed Lookahead with Recency Weight scheme. If an object is identified as a hot (small) object, then it will be served by SSD. Otherwise, cold (large) objects are stored on SMR. For an SMR, large objects can be accessed in large sequential blocks, rendering the performance of their accesses comparable with that of accessing the same large sequential blocks as if they were stored on a hard drive. Small objects, such as inodes and directories, are stored on the SSD where “seeks” for such objects are nearly free. With thorough empirical studies, we demonstrate that CosaFS, as a cooperative shingle-aware file system, with metadata separation and cache-assistance, is a very effective way to handle the disk-based data demanded by the shingled writes and outperforms the device- and host-side shingle-aware file systems in terms of throughput, IOPS, and access latency as well.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".