MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808200030 · doi:10.1109/icdcs.2018.00019

Parallelism-Aware Locally Repairable Code for Distributed Storage Systems

2018· article· en· W2808200030 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Li, Baochun Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Storage Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsServerComputer scienceErasure codeOverhead (engineering)Distributed data storeBottleneckFile serverDistributed computingParallel computingDistributed databaseOperating systemDecoding methodsEmbedded systemAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distributed storage systems store a substantial amount of data in a large number of servers built with commodity hardware. In order to protect data against server failures, erasure coding has been deployed in many distributed storage systems because of its low storage overhead. In particular, since disk I/O is, in many cases, a bottleneck in the distributed storage system, locally repairable codes, have been proposed that incur low volumes of disk I/O when reconstructing missing data after server failures. However, since original data can only be read from specific servers, existing designs of locally repairable codes suffer from limited data parallelism. Besides, if the performance of servers is heterogeneous, slow servers may become the bottleneck when accessing data in parallel. In this paper, we propose Galloper codes, a novel family of locally repairable codes, that achieve low disk I/O during reconstruction and meanwhile extend data parallelism from specific servers to all servers. Moreover, the amount of original data in each server can be arbitrarily determined based on the performance of corresponding servers. We have implemented a prototype of Galloper codes on Apache Hadoop, and our experimental results have shown that Galloper codes can reduce the completion time of MapReduce jobs by up to 42.9%, with a comparable performance as existing locally repairable codes, in terms of disk I/O overhead, as well as encoding and reconstruction overhead.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Data Storage TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207