The case for distributed shared-memory databases with RDMA-enabled memory disaggregation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".