MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313152108 · doi:10.14778/3561261.3561263

The case for distributed shared-memory databases with RDMA-enabled memory disaggregation

2022· article· en· W4313152108 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

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Storage Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemote direct memory accessScalabilityComputer scienceShared memoryDatabaseDistributed memoryScalingMemory managementOperating systemSemiconductor memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Memory disaggregation (MD) allows for scalable and elastic data center design by separating compute (CPU) from memory. With MD, compute and memory are no longer coupled into the same server box. Instead, they are connected to each other via ultra-fast networking such as RDMA. MD can bring many advantages, e.g., higher memory utilization, better independent scaling (of compute and memory), and lower cost of ownership. This paper makes the case that MD can fuel the next wave of innovation on database systems. We observe that MD revives the great debate of "shared what" in the database community. We envision that distributed shared-memory databases (DSM-DB, for short) - that have not received much attention before - can be promising in the future with MD. We present a list of challenges and opportunities that can inspire next steps in system design making the case for DSM-DB.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.003
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.224 · 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