MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808680666 · doi:10.1109/wcnc.2018.8377404

Data allocation for multi-class distributed storage systems

2018· article· en· W2808680666 on OpenAlexafffund
Koosha Pourtahmasi Roshandeh, Moslem Noori, Masoud Ardakani, Chintha Tellambura

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Storage Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsComputer scienceQuality of serviceComputer networkComputer data storageDistributed computingClass (philosophy)Distributed data storeData recovery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distributed storage systems (DSSs) are vastly used for reliably storing large amounts of data generated by current and future wireless networks, e.g. social mobile networks or Internet of things. Depending on the features of the data source, various data files may require different levels of quality of service (QoS), e.g. in terms of the probability of successful recovery or data recovery delay. This means that data files can be divided into different classes in terms of their QoS requirements. To address the requirements of each class of data, efficient data (storage) allocation methods, meaning how data is spread over the storage nodes, should be devised. In this paper, we study the optimal data allocation for maximizing the weighted sum of the probability of successful recovery of the data of different classes. Finding such optimal allocations is intractable in general. Therefore, we focus on finding the optimal minimal spreading allocation (MSA) where the data of each class is spread minimally over the storage nodes. MSA possesses several benefits including minimum expected recovery delay and maximum average service rate. Simulation results show that our proposed MSA is indeed the optimal storage allocation in many cases.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Data Storage TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207