VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Brian F. Cooper
dblp:12/875
· DBLP profile ↗
31ranked-venue papers
16as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 13 · 5 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 9 · 5 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 6 · 4 first-authorComputer networks · 2 · 1 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
13 papers |
Distributed and cloud data management · 52% Indexing and storage engines · 15% Information retrieval · 15% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
11 papers |
Distributed systems · 49% Cloud and datacenter computing · 26% Storage systems · 17% |
Topics — the 30 heaviest of 36, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Distributed and cloud data management › geo-distributed data management
geo-replicated database |
0.5 | 2 | 2019 | PNUTS to Sherpa: Lessons from Yahoo!'s Cloud Database · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2019 PNUTS: Yahoo!'s hosted data serving platform · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2008 |
Distributed and cloud data management
distributed query processing |
0.4 | 2 | 2017 | Spanner: Becoming a SQL System · SIGMOD Conference 2017 Adaptively Parallelizing Distributed Range Queries · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2009 |
Indexing and storage engines
columnar storage |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Spanner: Becoming a SQL System · SIGMOD Conference 2017 |
Distributed systems
peer-to-peer systems |
0.2 | 4 | 2007 | Routing Queries through a Peer-to-Peer InfoBeacons Network Using Information Retrieval Techniques · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 2007 Performance of Full Text Search in Structured and Unstructured Peer-to-Peer Systems · INFOCOM 2006 Ad Hoc, self-supervising peer-to-peer search networks · ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 2005 |
Information retrieval › distributed information retrieval
peer-to-peer search |
0.1 | 2 | 2007 | Routing Queries through a Peer-to-Peer InfoBeacons Network Using Information Retrieval Techniques · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 2007 Performance of Full Text Search in Structured and Unstructured Peer-to-Peer Systems · INFOCOM 2006 |
Distributed and cloud data management
data placement |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Where in the World is My Data? · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2011 |
Cloud and datacenter computing
cloud data management |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | A batch of PNUTS: experiences connecting cloud batch and serving systems · SIGMOD Conference 2011 |
Cloud and datacenter computing
database-as-a-service |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | PNUTS to Sherpa: Lessons from Yahoo!'s Cloud Database · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2019 |
Query processing and optimization › query optimization
distributed query optimization |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | A Distributed Stream Query Optimization Framework through Integrated Planning and Deployment · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 2009 |
Query processing and optimization
parallel query processing |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | Adaptively Parallelizing Distributed Range Queries · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2009 |
Distributed systems › stream processing
distributed stream processing |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | A Distributed Stream Query Optimization Framework through Integrated Planning and Deployment · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 2009 |
Storage systems
storage reliability |
0.1 | 2 | 2005 | Peer-to-Peer Data Preservation through Storage Auctions · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 2005 Peer-to-peer data trading to preserve information · ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 2002 |
Distributed and cloud data management › data replication
replica consistency |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | Spanner: Becoming a SQL System · SIGMOD Conference 2017 |
Information retrieval › distributed information retrieval
query routing |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Routing Queries through a Peer-to-Peer InfoBeacons Network Using Information Retrieval Techniques · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 2007 |
Indexing and storage engines
semistructured data indexing |
0.1 | 2 | 2002 | Managing Complex and Varied Data with the IndexFabric(tm) · ICDE 2002 A Fast Index for Semistructured Data · VLDB 2001 |
Information retrieval › search engines
full-text search |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | Performance of Full Text Search in Structured and Unstructured Peer-to-Peer Systems · INFOCOM 2006 |
Distributed systems
fault tolerance |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Ad Hoc, self-supervising peer-to-peer search networks · ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 2005 |
Storage systems › distributed storage
peer-to-peer storage |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Peer-to-Peer Data Preservation through Storage Auctions · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 2005 |
Distributed systems
replication |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Peer-to-Peer Data Preservation through Storage Auctions · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 2005 |
Cloud and datacenter computing › cluster resource management and scheduling
cluster resource management |
0.0 | 2 | 2008 | PNUTS: Yahoo!'s hosted data serving platform · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2008 Efficient bulk insertion into a distributed ordered table · SIGMOD Conference 2008 |
Parallel and multicore computing
data distribution |
0.0 | 1 | 2011 | Where in the World is My Data? · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2011 |
Storage systems › file systems
distributed file system |
0.0 | 1 | 2011 | A batch of PNUTS: experiences connecting cloud batch and serving systems · SIGMOD Conference 2011 |
Distributed systems › replication
data replication |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Peer-to-peer data trading to preserve information · ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 2002 |
Transaction processing and concurrency control › consistency
consistency models |
0.0 | 1 | 2009 | Asynchronous view maintenance for VLSD databases · SIGMOD Conference 2009 |
Query processing and optimization
materialized view |
0.0 | 1 | 2009 | Asynchronous view maintenance for VLSD databases · SIGMOD Conference 2009 |
Query processing and optimization
query scheduling |
0.0 | 1 | 2009 | Adaptively Parallelizing Distributed Range Queries · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2009 |
Parallel and multicore computing
parallel query processing |
0.0 | 1 | 2009 | A Distributed Stream Query Optimization Framework through Integrated Planning and Deployment · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 2009 |
Parallel and multicore computing
load balancing |
0.0 | 1 | 2008 | Efficient bulk insertion into a distributed ordered table · SIGMOD Conference 2008 |
Network optimization and economics
auction mechanism |
0.0 | 1 | 2005 | Peer-to-Peer Data Preservation through Storage Auctions · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 2005 |
Data models and query languages
semistructured data |
0.0 | 1 | 2001 | A Fast Index for Semistructured Data · VLDB 2001 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
range extraction · 0.3query restart · 0.3simulation · 0.2top-down/bottom-up/hybrid planning algorithms · 0.2hierarchical network partitioning · 0.2replication · 0.2hashed and ordered table storage · 0.2bin packing · 0.2approximation algorithm · 0.2information retrieval techniques · 0.1hadoop · 0.1HDFS · 0.1informed source probing · 0.1auction theory · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | PNUTS to Sherpa: Lessons from Yahoo!'s Cloud DatabaseabstractIn this paper, we look back at the evolution of Yahoo!'s geo-replicated cloud data store from a research project called PNUTS to a globally deployed production system called Sherpa, share some of the lessons learned along the way, and finally, compare PNUTS with current operational cloud stores. Brian F. Cooper, P. P. S. Narayan, Raghu Ramakrishnan 0001, Utkarsh Srivastava, Adam Silberstein, Philip Bohannon, Hans-Arno Jacobsen, Nick Puz, Daniel Weaver, Ramana Yerneni |
Proc. VLDB Endow. | 1 |
| 2017 | Spanner: Becoming a SQL SystemabstractSpanner is a globally-distributed data management system that backs hundreds of mission-critical services at Google. Spanner is built on ideas from both the systems and database communities. The first Spanner paper published at OSDI'12 focused on the systems aspects such as scalability, automatic sharding, fault tolerance, consistent replication, external consistency, and wide-area distribution. This paper highlights the database DNA of Spanner. We describe distributed query execution in the presence of resharding, query restarts upon transient failures, range extraction that drives query routing and index seeks, and the improved blockwise-columnar storage format. We touch upon migrating Spanner to the common SQL dialect shared with other systems at Google. David F. Bacon, Nathan Bales, Nicolas Bruno, Brian F. Cooper, Adam Dickinson, Andrew Fikes, Campbell Fraser, Andrey Gubarev, Milind Joshi, Eugene Kogan, Alexander Lloyd, Sergey Melnik 0001, Rajesh Rao, David Shue, Marcel van der Holst, Dale Woodford |
SIGMOD Conference | 4 |
| 2013 | Spanner: Google's globally-distributed databaseabstractSpanner is Google's scalable, multi-version, globally-distributed, and synchronously-replicated database. It provides strong transactional semantics, consistent replication, and high performance reads and writes for a variety of Google's applications. I'll discuss the design and implementation of Spanner, as well as some of the lessons we have learned along the way. I'll also discuss some open challenges that we still see in building scalable distributed storage systems. Brian F. Cooper |
SYSTOR | 1 |
| 2011 | A batch of PNUTS: experiences connecting cloud batch and serving systemsabstractCloud data management systems are growing in prominence, particularly at large Internet companies like Google, Yahoo!, and Amazon, which prize them for their scalability and elasticity. Each of these systems trades off between low-latency serving performance and batch processing throughput. In this paper, we discuss our experience running batch-oriented Hadoop on top of Yahoo's serving-oriented PNUTS system instead of the standard HDFS file system. Though PNUTS is optimized for and primarily used for serving, a number of applications at Yahoo! must run batch-oriented jobs that read or write data that is stored in PNUTS. Adam Silberstein, Russell Sears, Wenchao Zhou, Brian F. Cooper |
SIGMOD Conference | 4 |
| 2011 | Where in the World is My Data?
Sudarshan Kadambi, Jianjun Chen 0001, Brian F. Cooper, David Lomax, Raghu Ramakrishnan 0001, Adam Silberstein, Erwin Tam, Hector Garcia-Molina |
Proc. VLDB Endow. | 3 |
| 2010 | Benchmarking cloud serving systems with YCSBabstractWhile the use of MapReduce systems (such as Hadoop) for large scale data analysis has been widely recognized and studied, we have recently seen an explosion in the number of systems developed for cloud data serving. These newer systems address "cloud OLTP" applications, though they typically do not support ACID transactions. Examples of systems proposed for cloud serving use include BigTable, PNUTS, Cassandra, HBase, Azure, CouchDB, SimpleDB, Voldemort, and many others. Further, they are being applied to a diverse range of applications that differ considerably from traditional (e.g., TPC-C like) serving workloads. The number of emerging cloud serving systems and the wide range of proposed applications, coupled with a lack of apples-to-apples performance comparisons, makes it difficult to understand the tradeoffs between systems and the workloads for which they are suited. We present the "Yahoo! Cloud Serving Benchmark" (YCSB) framework, with the goal of facilitating performance comparisons of the new generation of cloud data serving systems. We define a core set of benchmarks and report results for four widely used systems: Cassandra, HBase, Yahoo!'s PNUTS, and a simple sharded MySQL implementation. We also hope to foster the development of additional cloud benchmark suites that represent other classes of applications by making our benchmark tool available via open source. In this regard, a key feature of the YCSB framework/tool is that it is extensible--it supports easy definition of new workloads, in addition to making it easy to benchmark new systems. Brian F. Cooper, Adam Silberstein, Erwin Tam, Raghu Ramakrishnan 0001, Russell Sears |
SoCC | 1 |
| 2010 | Feeding frenzy: selectively materializing users' event feedsabstractNear real-time event streams are becoming a key feature of many popular web applications. Many web sites allow users to create a personalized feed by selecting one or more event streams they wish to follow. Examples include Twitter and Facebook, which a user to follow other users' activity, and iGoogle and My Yahoo, which allow users to follow selected RSS streams. How can we efficiently construct a web page showing the latest events from a user's feed? Constructing such a feed must be fast so the page loads quickly, yet reflects recent updates to the underlying event streams. The wide fanout of popular streams (those with many followers) and high skew (fanout and update rates vary widely) make it difficult to scale such applications. Adam Silberstein, Jeff Terrace, Brian F. Cooper, Raghu Ramakrishnan 0001 |
SIGMOD Conference | 3 |
| 2009 | Asynchronous view maintenance for VLSD databasesabstractThe query models of the recent generation of very large scale distributed (VLSD) shared-nothing data storage systems, including our own PNUTS and others (e.g. BigTable, Dynamo, Cassandra, etc.) are intentionally simple, focusing on simple lookups and scans and trading query expressiveness for massive scale. Indexes and views can expand the query expressiveness of such systems by materializing more complex access paths and query results. In this paper, we examine mechanisms to implement indexes and views in a massive scale distributed database. For web applications, minimizing update latencies is critical, so we advocate deferring the work of maintaining views and indexes as much as possible. We examine the design space, and conclude that two types of view implementations, called remote view tables (RVTs) and local view tables (LVTs), provide good tradeoff between system throughput and minimizing view staleness. We describe how to construct and maintain such view tables, and how they can be used to implement indexes, group-by-aggregate views, equijoin views and selection views. We also introduce and analyze a consistency model that makes it easier for application developers to cope with the impact of deferred view maintenance. An empirical evaluation quantifies the maintenance costs of our views, and shows that they can significantly improve the cost of evaluating complex queries. Parag Agrawal, Adam Silberstein, Brian F. Cooper, Utkarsh Srivastava, Raghu Ramakrishnan 0001 |
SIGMOD Conference | 3 |
| 2009 | Adaptively Parallelizing Distributed Range QueriesabstractWe consider the problem of how to best parallelize range queries in a massive scale distributed database. In traditional systems the focus has been on maximizing parallelism, for example by laying out data to achieve the highest throughput. However, in a massive scale database such as our PNUTS system [11] or BigTable [10], maximizing parallelism is not necessarily the best strategy: the system has more than enough servers to saturate a single client by returning results faster than the client can consume them, and when there are multiple concurrent queries, maximizing parallelism for all of them will cause disk contention, reducing everybody's performance. How can we find the right parallelism level for each query in order to achieve high, consistent throughput for all queries? We propose an adaptive approach with two aspects. First, we adaptively determine the ideal parallelism for a single query execution, which is the minimum number of parallel scanning servers needed to satisfy the client, depending on query selectivity, client load, client-server bandwidth, and so on. Second, we adaptively schedule which servers will be assigned to different query executions, to minimize disk contention on servers and ensure that all queries receive good performance. Our scheduler can be tuned based on different policies, such as favoring short versus long queries or high versus low priority queries. An experimental study demonstrates the effectiveness of our techniques in the PNUTS system. Ymir Vigfusson, Adam Silberstein, Brian F. Cooper, Rodrigo Fonseca |
Proc. VLDB Endow. | 3 |
| 2009 | A Distributed Stream Query Optimization Framework through Integrated Planning and DeploymentabstractThis paper addresses the problem of optimizing multiple distributed stream queries that are executing simultaneously in distributed data stream systems. We argue that the static query optimization approach of "plan, then deployment" is inadequate for handling distributed queries involving multiple streams and node dynamics faced in distributed data stream systems and applications. Thus, the selection of an optimal execution plan in such dynamic and networked computing systems must consider operator ordering, reuse, network placement, and search space reduction. We propose to use hierarchical network partitions to exploit various opportunities for operator-level reuse while utilizing network characteristics to maintain a manageable search space during query planning and deployment. We develop top-down, bottom-up, and hybrid algorithms for exploiting operator-level reuse through hierarchical network partitions. Formal analysis is presented to establish the bounds on the search space and suboptimality of our algorithms. We have implemented our algorithms in the IFLOW system, an adaptive distributed stream management system. Through simulations and experiments using a prototype deployed on Emulab, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework and our algorithms. Sangeetha Seshadri, Vibhore Kumar, Brian F. Cooper, Ling Liu 0001 |
IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. | 3 |
| 2008 | Efficient bulk insertion into a distributed ordered tableabstractWe study the problem of bulk-inserting records into tables in a system that horizontally range-partitions data over a large cluster of shared-nothing machines. Each table partition contains a contiguous portion of the table's key range, and must accept all records inserted into that range. Examples of such systems include BigTable[8] at Google, and PNUTS [15] at Yahoo! During bulk inserts into an existing table, if most of the inserted records end up going into a small number of data partitions, the obtained throughput may be very poor due to ineffective use of cluster parallelism. We propose a novel approach in which a planning phase is invoked before the actual insertions. By creating new partitions and intelligently distributing partitions across machines, the planning phase ensures that the insertion load will be well-balanced. Since there is a tradeoff between the cost of moving partitions and the resulting throughput gain, the planning phase must minimize the sum of partition movement time and insertion time. We show that this problem is a variation of NP-hard bin-packing, reduce it to a problem of packing vectors, and then give a solution with provable approximation guarantees. We evaluate our approach on a prototype system deployed on a cluster of 50 machines, and show that it yields significant improvements over more naïve techniques. Adam Silberstein, Brian F. Cooper, Utkarsh Srivastava, Erik Vee, Ramana Yerneni, Raghu Ramakrishnan 0001 |
SIGMOD Conference | 2 |
| 2008 | PNUTS: Yahoo!'s hosted data serving platformabstractWe describe PNUTS, a massively parallel and geographically distributed database system for Yahoo!'s web applications. PNUTS provides data storage organized as hashed or ordered tables, low latency for large numbers of concurrent requests including updates and queries, and novel per-record consistency guarantees. It is a hosted, centrally managed, and geographically distributed service, and utilizes automated load-balancing and failover to reduce operational complexity. The first version of the system is currently serving in production. We describe the motivation for PNUTS and the design and implementation of its table storage and replication layers, and then present experimental results. Brian F. Cooper, Raghu Ramakrishnan 0001, Utkarsh Srivastava, Adam Silberstein, Philip Bohannon, Hans-Arno Jacobsen, Nick Puz, Daniel Weaver, Ramana Yerneni |
Proc. VLDB Endow. | 1 |
| 2007 | Optimizing Multiple Distributed Stream Queries Using Hierarchical Network PartitionsabstractWe consider the problem of query optimization in distributed data stream systems where multiple continuous queries may be executing simultaneously. In order to achieve the best performance, query planning (such as join ordering) must be considered in conjunction with deployment planning (e.g., assigning operators to physical nodes with optimal ordering). However, such a combination involves not only a large number of network nodes but also many query operators, resulting in an extremely large search space for optimal solutions. Our paper aims at addressing this problem by utilizing hierarchical network partitions. We propose two algorithms - top-down and bottom-up which utilize hierarchical network partitions to provide scalable query optimization. Formal analysis is presented to establish the bounds on the search-space and to show the sub-optimality of our algorithms. Through simulations and experiments using a prototype deployed on Emulab we demonstrate the effectiveness of our algorithms. Sangeetha Seshadri, Vibhore Kumar, Brian F. Cooper, Ling Liu 0001 |
IPDPS | 3 |
| 2007 | iManage: Policy-Driven Self-management for Enterprise-Scale Systems
Vibhore Kumar, Brian F. Cooper, Greg Eisenhauer, Karsten Schwan |
Middleware | 2 |
| 2007 | Routing Queries through a Peer-to-Peer InfoBeacons Network Using Information Retrieval TechniquesabstractIn the InfoBeacons system, a peer-to-peer network of beacons cooperates to route queries to the best information sources. Many internet sources are unwilling to provide more cooperation than simple searching to aid in the query routing.We adapt techniques from information retrieval to deal with this lack of cooperation. In particular, beacons determine how to route queries based on information cached from sources’ responses to queries. In this paper, we examine alternative architectures for routing queries between beacons and to data sources. We also examine how to improve the routing by probing sources in an informed way to learn about their content. Results of experiments using a beacon network to search 2,500 information sources demonstrates the effectiveness of our system; for example, our techniques require contacting up to 71 percent fewer sources than existing peer-to-peer random walk techniques. Sangeetha Seshadri, Brian F. Cooper |
IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. | 2 |
| 2006 | Performance of Full Text Search in Structured and Unstructured Peer-to-Peer SystemsabstractAbstract — While structured P2P systems (such as DHTs) are often regarded as an improvement over unstructured P2P systems (such as super-peer networks) in terms of routing efficiency, it is not clear which architecture is better for full text search. This paper provides a quantitative comparison of full text keyword search in structured and unstructured P2P systems. We examine three techniques (and optimizations to those techniques) proposed in the literature: using a DHT along with inverted lists and Bloom filters; using a super-peer network; and using a random walk over an unstructured network. We use real Web documents and user queries to measure the cost for both document publishing and query processing, in terms of bandwidth and response time. Our results show that all three techniques use roughly the same bandwidth to process queries (with the super-peer technique having a slight edge). The structured network provides the best response time (30 percent better than a super-peer network), but has a high cost of document publishing, using six times as much bandwidth as the super-peer system. The random walk technique requires no publishing, but has a very long response time unless multiple random walks operate in parallel. I. Rocky Dunlap, Mike Rexroad, Brian F. Cooper |
INFOCOM | 4 |
| 2006 | Utility-Driven Proactive Management of Availability in Enterprise-Scale Information Flows
Zhongtang Cai, Vibhore Kumar, Brian F. Cooper, Greg Eisenhauer, Karsten Schwan, Robert E. Strom |
Middleware | 3 |
| 2006 | Trading Off Resources Between Overlapping Overlays
Brian F. Cooper |
Middleware | 1 |
| 2006 | SIL: A model for analyzing scalable peer-to-peer search networks
Brian F. Cooper, Hector Garcia-Molina |
Comput. Networks | 1 |
| 2005 | Resource-Aware Distributed Stream Management Using Dynamic OverlaysabstractWe consider distributed applications that continuously stream data across the network, where data needs to be aggregated and processed to produce a 'useful' stream of updates. Centralized approaches to performing data aggregation suffer from high communication overheads, lack of scalability, and unpredictably high processing workloads at central servers. This paper describes a scalable and efficient solution to distributed stream management based on (1) resource-awareness, which is middleware-level knowledge of underlying network and processing resources, (2) overlay-based in-network data aggregation, and (3) high-level programming constructs to describe data-flow graphs for composing useful streams. Technical contributions include a novel algorithm based on resource-aware network partitioning to support dynamic deployment of dataflow graph components across the network, where efficiency of the deployed overlay is maintained by making use of partition-level resource-awareness. Contributions also include efficient middleware-based support for component deployment, utilizing runtime code generation rather than interpretation techniques, thereby addressing both high performance and resource-constrained applications. Finally, simulation experiments and benchmarks attained with actual operational data corroborate this paper's claims. Vibhore Kumar, Brian F. Cooper, Zhongtang Cai, Greg Eisenhauer, Karsten Schwan |
ICDCS | 2 |
| 2005 | An Optimal Overlay Topology for Routing Peer-to-Peer Searches
Brian F. Cooper |
Middleware | 1 |
| 2005 | Authenticity and availability in PIPE networks
Brian F. Cooper, Mayank Bawa, Neil Daswani, Sergio Marti, Hector Garcia-Molina |
Future Gener. Comput. Syst. | 1 |
| 2005 | Ad Hoc, self-supervising peer-to-peer search networksabstractPeer-to-peer search networks are a popular and widely deployed means of searching massively distributed digital information repositories. Unfortunately, as such networks grow, peers may become overloaded processing messages from other peers. This article examines how to reduce the load on nodes in P2P networks by allowing them to self-organize into a relatively efficient network, and then self-tune to make the network even more efficient. Two local operations used by a peer are introduced: connect() , in which the peer forms an ad hoc search or index link to another peer, and break() , in which the peer breaks a link that is producing too much load. By replacing fixed rules with dynamic local decision-making, such “self-supervising” networks can better adjust to network conditions. Different ways to implement connect() and break() are described, and the network structures that form under different configurations are examined. Simulation results indicate that the ad hoc networks formed using the described techniques are more efficient than popular supernode topologies for several important scenarios. Results for the fault tolerance and search latency of such ad hoc networks are also presented. Brian F. Cooper, Hector Garcia-Molina |
ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. | 1 |
| 2005 | Peer-to-Peer Data Preservation through Storage AuctionsabstractDigital archives protect important data collections from failures by making multiple copies at other archives, so that there are always several good copies of a collection. In a cooperative replication network, sites "trade" space, so that each site contributes storage resources to the system and uses storage resources at other sites. Here, we examine bid trading: a mechanism where sites conduct auctions to determine who to trade with. A local site wishing to make a copy of a collection announces how much remote space is needed, and accepts bids for how much of its own space the local site must "pay" to acquire that remote space. We define a spectrum of trading scenarios, ranging from a network of archives and digital libraries that trust each other, to a scenario where sites do as they please, including breaking the rules. Then, we focus on developing techniques for the scenarios where sites trust each other, although we discuss issues that may arise if sites are greedy or malicious. We examine the best policies for determining when to call auctions and how much to bid, as well as the effects of "maverick" sites that behave differently than other sites. Simulations of auction and trading sessions indicate that bid trading can allow sites to achieve higher reliability than the alternative: a system where sites trade equal amounts of space without bidding. Brian F. Cooper, Hector Garcia-Molina |
IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. | 1 |
| 2004 | A Content Model for Evaluating Peer-to-Peer Searching Techniques
Brian F. Cooper |
Middleware | 1 |
| 2004 | Guiding Queries to Information Sources with InfoBeacons
Brian F. Cooper |
Middleware | 1 |
| 2002 | Bidding for Storage Space in a Peer-to-Peer Data Preservation SystemabstractDigital archives protect important data collections from failures by making multiple copies at other archives, so that there are always several good copies of a collection. In a cooperative replication network sites "trade" space, so that each site contributes storage resources to the system and uses storage resources at other sites. Here, we examine bid trading: a mechanism where sites conduct auctions to determine who to trade with. A local site wishing to make a copy of a collection announces how much remote space is needed, and accepts bids for how much of its own space the local site must "pay" to acquire that remote space. We examine the best policies for determining when to call auctions and how much to bid, as well as the effects of "maverick" sites that attempt to subvert the bidding system. Simulations of auction and trading sessions indicate that bid trading can allow sites to achieve higher reliability than the alternative: a system where sites trade equal amounts of space without bidding. Brian F. Cooper, Hector Garcia-Molina |
ICDCS | 1 |
| 2002 | Managing Complex and Varied Data with the IndexFabric(tm)abstractEmerging networked applications present significant challenges for traditional data management techniques for two reasons. First, they are based on data encoded in XML, LDAP directories, etc. that typically have complex inter-relationships. Second, the dynamic nature of networked applications and the need to integrate data from multiple sources results in data that is semior irregularly structured. The IndexFabric has been developed to meet both these challenges. In this demonstration, we show how the IndexFabric efficiently encodes and indexes very large collections of irregular, semistructured, and complex data. Neal Sample, Brian F. Cooper, Michael J. Franklin, Gísli R. Hjaltason, Moshe Shadmon, Levy Cohe |
ICDE | 2 |
| 2002 | Peer-to-peer data trading to preserve informationabstractData archiving systems rely on replication to preserve information. This paper discusses how a network of autonomous archiving sites can trade data to achieve the most reliable replication. A series of binary trades among sites produces a peer-to-peer archiving network. Two trading algorithms are examined, one based on trading collections (even if they are different sizes) and another based on trading equal sized blocks of space (which can then store collections). The concept of deeds is introduced; deeds track the blocks of space owned by one site at another. Policies for tuning these algorithms to provide the highest reliability, for example by changing the order in which sites are contacted and offered trades, are discussed. Finally, simulation results are presented that reveal which policies are best. The experiments indicate that a digital archive can achieve the best reliability by trading blocks of space (deeds), and that following certain policies will allow that site to maximize its reliability. Brian F. Cooper, Hector Garcia-Molina |
ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. | 1 |
| 2001 | A Fast Index for Semistructured Data
Brian F. Cooper, Neal Sample, Michael J. Franklin, Gísli R. Hjaltason, Moshe Shadmon |
VLDB | 1 |
| 2001 | Middle-Tier Extensible Data Management
Brian F. Cooper, Neal Sample, Michael J. Franklin, Joshua Olshansky, Moshe Shadmon |
World Wide Web | 1 |