Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Brandon Holt

dblp:145/7763 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Systems, architecture and hardware · 2 · 1 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 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.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
3 papers
Memory systems · 33% Storage systems · 26% Parallel and multicore computing · 22%

Topics — the 9 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Distributed systems › distributed system architecture
geo-distributed systems
0.212016
Diamond: Automating Data Management and Storage for Wide-Area, Reactive Applications · OSDI 2016
Storage systems › networked storage
wide-area storage
0.212016
Diamond: Automating Data Management and Storage for Wide-Area, Reactive Applications · OSDI 2016
Memory systems › shared memory
distributed shared memory
0.212015
Latency-Tolerant Software Distributed Shared Memory · USENIX ATC 2015
Memory systems › shared memory › distributed shared memory
software distributed shared memory
0.212015
Latency-Tolerant Software Distributed Shared Memory · USENIX ATC 2015
Storage systems
data migration
0.212014
Alembic: automatic locality extraction via migration · OOPSLA 2014
Parallel and multicore computing
parallel programming models
0.212014
Alembic: automatic locality extraction via migration · OOPSLA 2014
Parallel and multicore computing › parallel programming models › distributed memory programming models
partitioned global address space
0.212014
Alembic: automatic locality extraction via migration · OOPSLA 2014
Memory systems
shared memory
0.112015
Latency-Tolerant Software Distributed Shared Memory · USENIX ATC 2015
Memory systems
data movement
0.112014
Alembic: automatic locality extraction via migration · OOPSLA 2014

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

latency tolerance · 0.2migration · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 Disciplined Inconsistency with Consistency Types
abstract
Distributed applications and web services, such as online stores or social networks, are expected to be scalable, available, responsive, and fault-tolerant. To meet these steep requirements in the face of high round-trip latencies, network partitions, server failures, and load spikes, applications use eventually consistent datastores that allow them to weaken the consistency of some data. However, making this transition is highly error-prone because relaxed consistency models are notoriously difficult to understand and test.
Brandon Holt, James Bornholt, Irene Zhang, Dan R. K. Ports, Mark Oskin, Luis Ceze
SoCC1
2016 Diamond: Automating Data Management and Storage for Wide-Area, Reactive Applications
Irene Zhang, Niel Lebeck, Pedro Fonseca 0001, Brandon Holt, Raymond Cheng 0001, Ariadna Norberg, Arvind Krishnamurthy, Henry M. Levy
OSDI4
2015 Latency-Tolerant Software Distributed Shared Memory
Jacob Nelson 0001, Brandon Holt, Brandon Myers, Preston Briggs, Luis Ceze, Simon Kahan, Mark Oskin
USENIX ATC2
2014 Alembic: automatic locality extraction via migration
abstract
Partitioned Global Address Space (PGAS) environments simplify writing parallel code for clusters because they make data movement implicit - dereferencing global pointers automatically moves data around. However, it does not free the programmer from needing to reason about locality - poor placement of data can lead to excessive and even unnecessary communication. For this reason, modern PGAS languages such as X10, Chapel, and UPC allow programmers to express data-layout constraints and explicitly move computation. This places an extra burden on the programmer, and is less effective for applications with limited or data-dependent locality (e.g., graph analytics).
Brandon Holt, Preston Briggs, Luis Ceze, Mark Oskin
OOPSLA1