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

Tom Magrino

dblp:151/6793 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
0009-0009-2875-9637ORCID · corroborated

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

Systems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 first-authorComputer networks · 1Security and privacy · 1

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
Distributed systems · 100%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Transaction processing and concurrency control · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Distributed systems
distributed coordination
0.622019
Efficient, Consistent Distributed Computation with Predictive Treaties · EuroSys 2019
Warranties for Faster Strong Consistency · NSDI 2014
Distributed systems › consistency models
strong consistency
0.622019
Efficient, Consistent Distributed Computation with Predictive Treaties · EuroSys 2019
Warranties for Faster Strong Consistency · NSDI 2014
Distributed systems
replication
0.322019
Warranties for Faster Strong Consistency · NSDI 2014
Efficient, Consistent Distributed Computation with Predictive Treaties · EuroSys 2019
Transaction processing and concurrency control › transaction scheduling
serializable scheduling
0.212016
Safe Serializable Secure Scheduling: Transactions and the Trade-Off Between Security and Consistency · CCS 2016

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

static compiler checking · 0.5staged commit protocol · 0.5time-dependent local enforcement · 0.4predicate partitioning · 0.4consistency protocols · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 Efficient, Consistent Distributed Computation with Predictive Treaties
abstract
To achieve good performance, modern applications often partition their state across multiple geographically distributed nodes. While this approach reduces latency in the common case, it can be challenging for programmers to use correctly, especially in applications that require strong consistency. We introduce predictive treaties, a mechanism that can significantly reduce distributed coordination without losing strong consistency. The central insight behind our approach is that many computations can be expressed in terms of predicates over distributed state that can be partitioned and enforced locally. Predictive treaties improve on previous work by allowing the locally enforced predicates to depend on time. Intuitively, by predicting the evolution of system state, coordination can be significantly reduced compared to static approaches. We implemented predictive treaties in a distributed system that exposes them in an intuitive programming model. We evaluate performance on several benchmarks, including TPC-C, showing that predictive treaties can significantly increase performance by orders of magnitude and can even outperform customized algorithms.
Tom Magrino, Jed Liu, Nate Foster, Johannes Gehrke, Andrew C. Myers
EuroSys1
2016 Safe Serializable Secure Scheduling: Transactions and the Trade-Off Between Security and Consistency
abstract
Modern applications often operate on data in multiple administrative domains. In this federated setting, participants may not fully trust each other. These distributed applications use transactions as a core mechanism for ensuring reliability and consistency with persistent data. However, the coordination mechanisms needed for transactions can both leak confidential information and allow unauthorized influence. By implementing a simple attack, we show these side channels can be exploited. However, our focus is on preventing such attacks. We explore secure scheduling of atomic, serializable transactions in a federated setting. While we prove that no protocol can guarantee security and liveness in all settings, we establish conditions for sets of transactions that can safely complete under secure scheduling. Based on these conditions, we introduce \ti{staged commit}, a secure scheduling protocol for federated transactions. This protocol avoids insecure information channels by dividing transactions into distinct stages. We implement a compiler that statically checks code to ensure it meets our conditions, and a system that schedules these transactions using the staged commit protocol. Experiments on this implementation demonstrate that realistic federated transactions can be scheduled securely, atomically, and efficiently.
Isaac C. Sheff, Tom Magrino, Jed Liu, Andrew C. Myers, Robbert van Renesse
CCS2
2014 Warranties for Faster Strong Consistency
Jed Liu, Tom Magrino, Owen Arden, Michael D. George, Andrew C. Myers
NSDI2