Blueprinting the Cloud: Unifying and Automatically Optimizing Cloud Data Infrastructures with BRAD
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
Modern organizations manage their data with a wide variety of specialized cloud database engines (e.g., Aurora, BigQuery, etc.). However, designing and managing such infrastructures is hard. Developers must consider many possible designs with non-obvious performance consequences; moreover, current software abstractions tightly couple applications to specific systems (e.g., with engine-specific clients), making it difficult to change after initial deployment. A better solution would virtualize cloud data management, allowing developers to declaratively specify their workload requirements and rely on automated solutions to design and manage the physical realization. In this paper, we present a technique called blueprint planning that achieves this vision. The key idea is to project data infrastructure design decisions into a unified design space (blueprints). We then systematically search over candidate blueprints using cost-based optimization, leveraging learned models to predict the utility of a blueprint on the workload. We use this technique to build BRAD, the first cloud data virtualization system. BRAD users issue queries to a single SQL interface that can be backed by multiple cloud database services. BRAD automatically selects the most suitable engine for each query, provisions and manages resources to minimize costs, and evolves the infrastructure to adapt to workload shifts. Our evaluation shows that BRAD meet user-defined performance targets and improve cost-savings by 1.6--13× compared to serverless auto-scaling or HTAP systems.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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