Empirical evaluation of multi-level buffer cache collaboration for storage systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To bridge the increasing processor-disk performance gap, buffer caches are used in both storage clients (e.g. database systems) and storage servers to reduce the number of slow disk accesses. These buffer caches need to be managed effectively to deliver the performance commensurate to the aggregate buffer cache size. To address this problem, two paradigms have been proposed recently to collaboratively manage these buffer caches together: the hierarchy-aware caching maintains the same I/O interface and is fully transparent to the storage client software, and the aggressively-collaborative caching trades off transparency for performance and requires changes to both the interface and the storage client software. Before storage industry starts to implement collaborative caching in real systems, it is crucial to find out whether sacrificing transparency is really worthwhile, i.e., how much can we gain by using the aggressively-collaborative caching instead of the hierarchy-aware caching? To accurately answer this question, it is required to consider all possible combinations of recently proposed local replacement algorithms and optimization techniques in both collaboration paradigms.Our study provides an empirical evaluation to address the above questions. Particularly, we have compared three aggressively-collaborative approaches with two hierarchy-aware approaches for four different types of database/file I/O workloads using traces collected from real commercial systems such as IBM DB2 . More importantly, we separate the effects of collaborative caching from local replacement algorithms and optimizations, and uniformly apply several recently proposed local replacement algorithms and optimizations to all five collaboration approaches.When appropriate local optimizations and replacement algorithms are uniformly applied to both hierarchy-aware and aggressively-collaborative caching, the results indicate that hierarchy-aware caching can deliver similar performance as aggressively-collaborative caching. The results show that the aggressively-collaborative caching only provides less than 2.5% performance improvement on average in simulation and 1.0% in real system experiments over the hierarchy-aware caching for most workloads and cache configurations. Our sensitivity study indicates that the performance gain of aggressively-collaborative caching is also very small for various storage networks and different cache configurations. Therefore, considering its simplicity and generality, hierarchy-aware caching is more feasible than aggressively-collaborative caching.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it