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

Nima Elyasi

dblp:149/4655 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
3as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0003-0349-1119ORCID · corroborated

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

Systems, architecture and hardware · 5 · 3 first-author · 2 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 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.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
3 papers
Storage systems · 28% Reconfigurable computing and FPGAs · 28% Memory systems · 28%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
2 papers
Graph data management · 100%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Reconfigurable computing and FPGAs › FPGA accelerator
FPGA-based graph processing
0.712023
ACTS: A Near-Memory FPGA Graph Processing Framework · FPGA 2023
Memory systems › processing-in-memory
near-memory processing
0.712023
ACTS: A Near-Memory FPGA Graph Processing Framework · FPGA 2023
Graph data management › graph processing
large-scale graph processing
0.412019
Large-Scale Graph Processing on Emerging Storage Devices · FAST 2019
Storage systems › storage devices › storage media
emerging storage devices
0.412019
Large-Scale Graph Processing on Emerging Storage Devices · FAST 2019
Storage systems
flash and SSD
0.312017
Exploiting Intra-Request Slack to Improve SSD Performance · ASPLOS 2017
Cloud and datacenter computing
request scheduling
0.312017
Exploiting Intra-Request Slack to Improve SSD Performance · ASPLOS 2017
Graph data management › graph algorithms
graph traversal
0.212023
ACTS: A Near-Memory FPGA Graph Processing Framework · FPGA 2023
Performance modeling and evaluation
workload characterization
0.112017
Exploiting Intra-Request Slack to Improve SSD Performance · ASPLOS 2017

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

graph slicing · 1.3graph partitioning · 1.3BRAM staging · 1.3slack estimation · 0.3re-ordering scheduler · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 SmartGraph: A Framework for Graph Processing in Computational Storage
abstract
Graph processing plays a pivotal role in numerous large-scale applications, including social and transportation networks. One of the primary challenges in handling large-scale graph data is its tendency to surpass DRAM capacities. Conventional methods focus on minimizing I/O latency by decreasing disk I/O requests via predictive value calculations. However, these techniques often struggle with inefficient partitioning strategies that elevate DRAM needs, underutilized predictive calculations, and incur considerable synchronization overheads.
Soheil Khadirsharbiyani, Nima Elyasi, Armin Haj Aboutalebi, Chun-Yi Liu 0002, Changho Choi, Mahmut T. Kandemir
SoCC2
2023 ACTS: A Near-Memory FPGA Graph Processing Framework
abstract
Despite the high off-chip bandwidth and on-chip parallelism offered by today's near-memory accelerators, software-based (CPU and GPU) graph processing frameworks still suffer performance degradation from under-utilization of available memory bandwidth because graph traversal often exhibits poor locality. Emerging FPGAbased graph accelerators tackle this challenge by designing specialized graph processing pipelines and application-specific memory subsystems to maximize bandwidth utilization and efficiently utilize high-speed on-chip memory. To use the limited on-chip (BRAM) memory effectively while handling larger graph sizes, several FPGAbased solutions resort to some form of graph slicing or partitioning during preprocessing to stage vertex property data into the BRAM. While this has demonstrated performance superiority for small graphs, this approach breaks down with larger graph sizes. For example, GraphLily [19], a recent high-performance FPGA-based graph accelerator, experiences up to 11X performance degradation between graphs having 3M vertices and 28M vertices. This makes prior FPGA approaches impractical for large graphs.
Wole Jaiyeoba, Nima Elyasi, Changho Choi, Kevin Skadron
FPGA2
2019 Large-Scale Graph Processing on Emerging Storage Devices
Nima Elyasi, Changho Choi, Anand Sivasubramaniam
FAST1
2018 Content Popularity-Based Selective Replication for Read Redirection in SSDs
abstract
Despite high degrees of parallelism in terms of the number of chips and channels on state-of-the-art SSDs, resource contention continues to be a big impediment to boosting their performance for both read and write requests. This is particularly significant in the delays due to queueing for service from individual NAND-flash chips that can take dozens/hundreds of microseconds to perform the read/write operations. Owing to the no-write-in-place policy that is employed in flash chips, writes are inherently suited to be redirected to chips with lower load, in case their original destination chip is overloaded. However, to date, there has been no work to redirect read requests, since they cannot be serviced by other chips, which do not have the data. While blindly replicating all the data everywhere seems very promising from a read redirection perspective, doing so results in high space overheads, high write/replication overheads and lower endurance. This paper presents a novel approach to selective replication, wherein the popularity of data is used to figure out the "what", "how much", "where" and "when" questions for replication. Leveraging value locality/popularity, that is often observed in practice, popular data is replicated across multiple chips to provide more opportunities for dynamic read redirection to less loaded flash chips. Using extensive workload traces running over weeks from real systems, we show that our Read Redirected SSD (RR-SSD) can provide up to 45% improvement in read performance, with average improvement of 23.9%, and up to 40% improvement when considering both read and write requests, with 16% improvement on average.
Nima Elyasi, Mohammad Arjomand, Anand Sivasubramaniam, Mahmut T. Kandemir, Chita R. Das
MASCOTS1
2017 Exploiting Intra-Request Slack to Improve SSD Performance
abstract
With Solid State Disks (SSDs) offering high degrees of parallelism, SSD controllers place data and direct requests to exploit the maximum offered hardware parallelism. In the quest to maximize parallelism and utilization, sub-requests of a request that are directed to different flash chips by the scheduler can experience differential wait times since their individual queues are not coordinated and load balanced at all times. Since the macro request is considered complete only when its last sub-request completes, some of its sub-requests that complete earlier have to necessarily wait for this last sub-request. This paper opens the door to a new class of schedulers to leverage such slack between sub-requests in order to improve response times. Specifically, the paper presents the design and implementation of a slack-enabled re-ordering scheduler, called Slacker, for sub-requests issued to each flash chip. Layered under a modern SSD request scheduler, Slacker estimates the slack of each incoming sub-request to a flash chip and allows them to jump ahead of existing sub-requests with sufficient slack so as to not detrimentally impact their response times. Slacker is simple to implement and imposes only marginal additions to the hardware. Using a spectrum of 21 workloads with diverse read-write characteristics, we show that Slacker provides as much as 19.5%, 13% and 14.5% improvement in response times, with average improvements of 12%, 6.5% and 8.5%, for write-intensive, read-intensive and read-write balanced workloads, respectively.
Nima Elyasi, Mohammad Arjomand, Anand Sivasubramaniam, Mahmut T. Kandemir, Chita R. Das, Myoungsoo Jung
ASPLOS1