Visualizing Distributed System Executions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distributed systems pose unique challenges for software developers. Understanding the system’s communication topology and reasoning about concurrent activities of system hosts can be difficult. The standard approach, analyzing system logs, can be a tedious and complex process that involves reconstructing a system log from multiple hosts’ logs, reconciling timestamps among hosts with non-synchronized clocks, and understanding what took place during the execution encoded by the log. This article presents a novel approach for tackling three tasks frequently performed during analysis of distributed system executions: (1) understanding the relative ordering of events, (2) searching for specific patterns of interaction between hosts, and (3) identifying structural similarities and differences between pairs of executions. Our approach consists of XVector , which instruments distributed systems to capture partial ordering information that encodes the happens-before relation between events, and ShiViz , which processes the resulting logs and presents distributed system executions as interactive time-space diagrams. Two user studies with a total of 109 students and a case study with 2 developers showed that our method was effective, helping participants answer statistically significantly more system-comprehension questions correctly, with a very large effect size.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".