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

Scott Chen

dblp:38/969 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0003-0948-530XORCID · corroborated

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

Systems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 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
1 paper
Storage systems · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Coding theory · 100%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Storage systems › storage reliability
erasure coding
0.212013
XORing Elephants: Novel Erasure Codes for Big Data · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2013
Storage systems › erasure-coded storage
locally repairable codes
0.212013
XORing Elephants: Novel Erasure Codes for Big Data · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2013
Storage systems
storage reliability
0.212013
XORing Elephants: Novel Erasure Codes for Big Data · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2013
Coding theory › error-correcting codes
erasure coding
0.212013
XORing Elephants: Novel Erasure Codes for Big Data · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2013
Coding theory › error-correcting codes
reed-solomon codes
0.212013
XORing Elephants: Novel Erasure Codes for Big Data · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2013
Storage systems
distributed storage
0.012013
XORing Elephants: Novel Erasure Codes for Big Data · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2013

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

locality-distance tradeoff analysis · 0.3XOR-based coding · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Customizing ATPG User-Defined Stresses and Tests To Target Cell-Neighborhood-Bridging Defects
abstract
Cell-neighbor-bridging defects between logic and filler cells were detected on an automotive design after a highly resistive short defect was activated during an internal reliability assessment, having previously passed all wafer probe and package Final Test stresses and screens. The impacted cell’s nodes were confirmed to be stressed and tested as intended at the wafer probe insertion, but not sufficiently enough to activate and observe the effect of the highly resistive defect’s impact on the circuit behavior. The paper discusses a new methodology that identified and located all instantiations of the affected cell combinations in the sea of gates, and development of new stress and test stimuli using User Define Fault Models (UDFM) to target only the affected cell combinations. Limiting the reach of the enhanced stress and test in this way enabled a cost effective and high-quality solution to accelerate activation and improve detectability of the latent defect during silicon test flows.
Stephen Traynor, Saidapet Ramesh, Maryfe Hernandez, Lawrence Herr, Scott Chen
VTS5
2013 XORing Elephants: Novel Erasure Codes for Big Data
abstract
Distributed storage systems for large clusters typically use replication to provide reliability. Recently, erasure codes have been used to reduce the large storage overhead of three-replicated systems. Reed-Solomon codes are the standard design choice and their high repair cost is often considered an unavoidable price to pay for high storage efficiency and high reliability. This paper shows how to overcome this limitation. We present a novel family of erasure codes that are efficiently repairable and offer higher reliability compared to Reed-Solomon codes. We show analytically that our codes are optimal on a recently identified tradeoff between locality and minimum distance. We implement our new codes in Hadoop HDFS and compare to a currently deployed HDFS module that uses Reed-Solomon codes. Our modified HDFS implementation shows a reduction of approximately 2× on the repair disk I/O and repair network traffic. The disadvantage of the new coding scheme is that it requires 14% more storage compared to Reed-Solomon codes, an overhead shown to be information theoretically optimal to obtain locality. Because the new codes repair failures faster, this provides higher reliability, which is orders of magnitude higher compared to replication.
Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy, Megasthenis Asteris, Dimitris S. Papailiopoulos, Alexandros G. Dimakis, Ramkumar Vadali, Scott Chen, Dhruba Borthakur
Proc. VLDB Endow.6