A Learning-Based Data Placement Framework for Low Latency in Data Center Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low-latency data service is an increasingly critical challenge for data center applications. In modern distributed storage systems, proper data placement helps reduce the data movement delay, which can contribute to the service latency reduction tremendously. Existing data placement solutions have often assumed the prior distribution of data requests or discovered it via trace analysis. However, data placement is a difficult online decision-making problem faced with dynamic network conditions and time-varying user request patterns. The conventional static model-based solutions are less effective to handle the dynamic system. With an overall consideration of data movement and analytical latency, we develop a reinforcement learning-based framework DataBot+, automatically learning the optimal placement policies. DataBot+ adopts neural networks, trained with a variant of$Q$-learning, whose input is the real-time data flow measurements and whose output is a value function estimating the near-future latency. For instantaneous decision making, DataBot+ is decoupled into two asynchronous production and training components, ensuring that the training delay will not introduce extra overheads to handle the data flows. Evaluation results driven by real-world traces demonstrate the effectiveness of our design.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".