Data Pipes: Declarative Control over Data Movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today’s storage landscape offers a deep and heterogeneous stack of technologies that promises to meet even the most demanding data-intensive workload needs. The diversity of technologies, however, presents a challenge. Parts of it are not controlled directly by the application, e.g., the cache layers, and the parts that are controlled, often require the programmer to deal with very different transfer mechanisms, such as disk and network APIs. Combining these different abstractions properly require great skill, and even so, expert-written programs can lead to sub-optimal utilization of the storage stack and present performance unpredictability. In this paper, we propose to combat these issues with a new programming abstraction called Data Pipes. Data pipes offer a new API that can express data transfers uniformly, irrespective of the source and destination data placements. By doing so, they can orchestrate how data moves over the different layers of the storage stack explicitly and fluidly. We suggest a preliminary implementation of Data Pipes that relies mainly on existing hardware primitives to implement data movements. We evaluate this implementation experimentally and comment on how a full version of Data Pipes could be brought to fruition.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".