Trading off logging overhead and coordinating overhead to achieve efficient rollback recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the rollback recovery of large‐scale long‐running applications in a distributed environment, pessimistic message logging protocols enable failed processes to recover independently, though at the expense of logging every message synchronously during fault‐free execution. In contrast, coordinated checkpointing protocols avoid message logging, but they are poor in scalability with a sharply increased coordinating overhead as the system grows. With the aim of achieving efficient rollback recovery by trading off logging overhead and coordinating overhead, this paper suggests a partitioning of the system into clusters, and then presents a scheme to implement the conversion between these overheads. Using the proposed conversion, coordination can be introduced to reduce the unbearable logging overhead found in some systems, whereas proper logging can be employed to alleviate the unacceptable coordinating overhead in others. Furthermore, heuristics are introduced to address the issue of how to partition the system into clusters in order to speed up the recovery process and to improve recovery efficiency. Performance evaluation results indicate that our scheme can lower the overall system overhead effectively. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".