MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970546348 · doi:10.14778/3342263.33422629

DimmStore

2019· article· en· W2970546348 on OpenAlexaff
Alexey Karyakin, Kenneth Salem

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTestbedServerExploitLocalityPower (physics)Memory managementEmbedded systemPower consumptionOperating systemComputer networkSemiconductor memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Memory can consume a substantial amount of power in database servers, yet memory power has received considerably less attention than CPU power. Memory power consumption is also highly non-proportional. Thus, memory power becomes even more significant in the common case in which a database server is either not completely busy or not completely full. In this paper, we study the application of two memory power optimization techniques - rank-aware allocation and rate-based layout - to database systems. By concentrating memory load, rather than spreading it out evenly, these techniques create and exploit memory idleness to achieve power savings. We have implemented these techniques in a prototype database system called DimmStore. DimmStore is part of a memory power testbed which includes customized hardware with direct power measurement capabilities, allowing us to measure the techniques' effectiveness. We use the testbed to empirically characterize the power saving opportunities provided by these techniques, as well as their performance impact, under YCSB and TPC-C workloads. Under simple YCSB workloads, power savings ranged up to 50%, depending on load and space utilization, with little performance impact. Savings were smaller, but still significant, for TPC-C, which has more complex data locality characteristics.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207