MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119951918 · doi:10.1145/3423137

SSD-based Workload Characteristics and Their Performance Implications

2021· article· en· W3119951918 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Storage · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Storage Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWorkloadFile systemLocalityBlock (permutation group theory)Cover (algebra)Block sizeSensitivity (control systems)Computer data storageOperating systemEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Storage systems are designed and optimized relying on wisdom derived from analysis studies of file-system and block-level workloads. However, while SSDs are becoming a dominant building block in many storage systems, their design continues to build on knowledge derived from analysis targeted at hard disk optimization. Though still valuable, it does not cover important aspects relevant for SSD performance. In a sense, we are “searching under the streetlight,” possibly missing important opportunities for optimizing storage system design. We present the first I/O workload analysis designed with SSDs in mind. We characterize traces from four repositories and examine their “temperature” ranges, sensitivity to page size, and “logical locality.” We then take the first step towards correlating these characteristics with three standard performance metrics: write amplification, read amplification, and flash read costs. Our results show that SSD-specific characteristics strongly affect performance, often in surprising ways.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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