Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Sungjoon Koh
dblp:206/6370
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
3as first author
2since 2021 · last 2021
0000-0003-0976-1933ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Systems, architecture and hardware · 6 · 3 first-author · 2 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 1 since 2021
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
4 papers |
Storage systems · 50% Memory systems · 34% Performance modeling and evaluation · 16% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Operating systems · 100% |
Topics — the 15 heaviest of 17, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Storage systems › flash and SSD
solid-state drive |
0.7 | 2 | 2018 | FlashShare: Punching Through Server Storage Stack from Kernel to Firmware for Ultra-Low Latency SSDs · OSDI 2018 Amber*: Enabling Precise Full-System Simulation with Detailed Modeling of All SSD Resources · MICRO 2018 |
Memory systems
non-volatile memory |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Revamping Storage Class Memory With Hardware Automated Memory-Over-Storage Solution · ISCA 2021 |
Memory systems › non-volatile memory
persistent memory |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Revamping Storage Class Memory With Hardware Automated Memory-Over-Storage Solution · ISCA 2021 |
Memory systems › non-volatile memory
storage class memory |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Revamping Storage Class Memory With Hardware Automated Memory-Over-Storage Solution · ISCA 2021 |
Storage systems › storage reliability
erasure coding |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Exploring Fault-Tolerant Erasure Codes for Scalable All-Flash Array Clusters · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 2019 |
Storage systems
flash and SSD |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Exploring Fault-Tolerant Erasure Codes for Scalable All-Flash Array Clusters · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 2019 |
Storage systems › data representation › data encoding › error correction coding
reed-solomon codes |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Exploring Fault-Tolerant Erasure Codes for Scalable All-Flash Array Clusters · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 2019 |
Operating systems › resource management › storage management
storage stack |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | FlashShare: Punching Through Server Storage Stack from Kernel to Firmware for Ultra-Low Latency SSDs · OSDI 2018 |
Performance modeling and evaluation › simulation › architectural simulation
full-system simulation |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Amber*: Enabling Precise Full-System Simulation with Detailed Modeling of All SSD Resources · MICRO 2018 |
Storage systems › flash and SSD › SSD performance
low-latency SSD |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | FlashShare: Punching Through Server Storage Stack from Kernel to Firmware for Ultra-Low Latency SSDs · OSDI 2018 |
Performance modeling and evaluation › simulation › computer system simulation
SSD simulation |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Amber*: Enabling Precise Full-System Simulation with Detailed Modeling of All SSD Resources · MICRO 2018 |
Memory systems
memory controller |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | Revamping Storage Class Memory With Hardware Automated Memory-Over-Storage Solution · ISCA 2021 |
Storage systems › file systems
distributed file system |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | Exploring Fault-Tolerant Erasure Codes for Scalable All-Flash Array Clusters · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 2019 |
Storage systems › file systems › distributed file system
parallel file system |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | Exploring Fault-Tolerant Erasure Codes for Scalable All-Flash Array Clusters · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 2019 |
Performance modeling and evaluation › benchmarking
storage benchmarking |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | Exploring Fault-Tolerant Erasure Codes for Scalable All-Flash Array Clusters · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 2019 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
flashshare · 0.7hardware automation · 0.5address mapping · 0.5replication · 0.4reed-solomon coding · 0.4gem5 integration · 0.3data transfer emulation · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Empirical Guide to Use of Persistent Memory for Large-Scale In-Memory Graph AnalysisabstractWe investigate runtime environment characteristics and explore the challenges of conventional in-memory graph processing. This system-level analysis includes empirical results and observations, which are opposite to the existing expectations of graph application users. Specifically, since raw graph data are not the same as the in-memory graph data, processing a billion-scale graph exhausts all system resources and makes the target system unavailable due to out-of-memory at runtime.To address a lack of memory space problem for big-scale graph analysis, we configure real persistent memory devices (PMEMs) with different operation modes and system software frameworks. In this work, we introduce PMEM to a representative in-memory graph system, Ligra, and perform an in-depth analysis uncovering the performance behaviors of different PMEM-applied in-memory graph systems. Based on our observations, we modify Ligra to improve the graph processing performance with a solid level of data persistence. Our evaluation results reveal that Ligra, with our simple modification, exhibits 4.41× and 3.01× better performance than the original Ligra running on a virtual memory expansion and conventional persistent memory, respectively. Hanyeoreum Bae, Miryeong Kwon, Donghyun Gouk, Sungjoon Koh, Changrim Lee, Dongchul Park, Myoungsoo Jung |
ICCD | 5 |
| 2021 | Revamping Storage Class Memory With Hardware Automated Memory-Over-Storage SolutionabstractLarge persistent memories such as NVDIMM have been perceived as a disruptive memory technology, because they can maintain the state of a system even after a power failure and allow the system to recover quickly. However, overheads incurred by a heavy software-stack intervention seriously negate the benefits of such memories. First, to significantly reduce the software stack overheads, we propose HAMS, a hardware auto-mated Memory-over-Storage (MoS) solution. Specifically, HAMS aggregates the capacity of NVDIMM and ultra-low latency flash archives (ULL-Flash) into a single large memory space, which can be used as a working memory expansion or persistent memory expansion, in an OS-transparent manner. HAMS resides in the memory controller hub and manages its MoS address pool over conventional DDR and NVMe interfaces; it employs a simple hardware cache to serve all the memory requests from the host MMU after mapping the storage space of ULL-Flash to the memory space of NVDIMM. Second, to make HAMS more energy-efficient and reliable, we propose an "advanced HAMS" which removes unnecessary data transfers between NVDIMM and ULL-Flash after optimizing the datapath and hardware modules of HAMS. This approach unleashes the ULL-Flash and its NVMe controller from the storage box and directly connects the HAMS datapath to NVDIMM over the conventional DDR4 interface. Our evaluations show that HAMS and advanced HAMS can offer 97% and 119% higher system performance than a software-based NVDIMM design, while costing 41% and 45% lower energy, respectively. Jie Zhang 0048, Miryeong Kwon, Donghyun Gouk, Sungjoon Koh, Nam Sung Kim, Mahmut T. Kandemir, Myoungsoo Jung |
ISCA | 4 |
| 2020 | Errata to "Exploring Fault-Tolerant Erasure Codes for Scalable All-Flash Array Clusters"abstractPresents corrections to author affiliation information in the above mentioned article. Sungjoon Koh, Jie Zhang 0048, Miryeong Kwon, Jungyeon Yoon, David Donofrio, Nam Sung Kim, Myoungsoo Jung |
IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. | 1 |
| 2019 | Exploring Fault-Tolerant Erasure Codes for Scalable All-Flash Array ClustersabstractLarge-scale systems with all-flash arrays have become increasingly common in many computing segments. To make such systems resilient, we can adopt erasure coding such as Reed-Solomon (RS) code as an alternative to replication because erasure coding incurs a significantly lower storage overhead than replication. To understand the impact of using erasure coding on the system performance and other system aspects such as CPU utilization and network traffic, we build a storage cluster that consists of approximately 100 processor cores with more than 50 high-performance solid-state drives (SSDs), and evaluate the cluster with a popular open-source distributed parallel file system, called Ceph. Specifically, we analyze the behaviors of a system adopting erasure coding from the following five viewpoints, and compare with those of another system using replication: (1) storage system I/O performance; (2) computing and software overheads; (3) I/O amplification; (4) network traffic among storage nodes, and (5) impact of physical data layout on performance of RS-coded SSD arrays. For all these analyses, we examine two representative RS configurations, used by Google file systems, and compare them with triple replication employed by a typical parallel file system as a default fault tolerance mechanism. Lastly, we collect 96 block-level traces from the cluster and release them to the public domain for the use of other researchers. Sungjoon Koh, Jie Zhang 0048, Miryeong Kwon, Jungyeon Yoon, David Donofrio, Nam Sung Kim, Myoungsoo Jung |
IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. | 1 |
| 2018 | Exploring System Challenges of Ultra-Low Latency Solid State Drives
Sungjoon Koh, Changrim Lee, Miryeong Kwon, Myoungsoo Jung |
HotStorage | 1 |
| 2018 | Amber*: Enabling Precise Full-System Simulation with Detailed Modeling of All SSD ResourcesabstractSSDs become a major storage component in modern memory hierarchies, and SSD research demands exploring future simulation-based studies by integrating SSD subsystems into a full-system environment. However, several challenges exist to model SSDs under a full-system simulations; SSDs are composed upon their own complete system and architecture, which employ all necessary hardware, such as CPUs, DRAM and interconnect network. Employing the hardware components, SSDs also require to have multiple device controllers, internal caches and software modules that respect a wide spectrum of storage interfaces and protocols. These SSD hardware and software are all necessary to incarnate storage subsystems under full-system environment, which can operate in parallel with the host system. In this work, we introduce a new SSD simulation framework, SimpleSSD 2.0, namely Amber, that models embedded CPU cores, DRAMs, and various flash technologies (within an SSD), and operate under the full system simulation environment by enabling a data transfer emulation. Amber also includes full firmware stack, including DRAM cache logic, flash firmware, such as FTL and HIL, and obey diverse standard protocols by revising the host DMA engines and system buses of a popular full system simulator's all functional and timing CPU models (gem5). The proposed simulator can capture the details of dynamic performance and power of embedded cores, DRAMs, firmware and flash under the executions of various OS systems and hardware platforms. Using Amber, we characterize several system-level challenges by simulating different types of full-systems, such as mobile devices and general-purpose computers, and offer comprehensive analyses by comparing passive storage and active storage architectures. Donghyun Gouk, Miryeong Kwon, Jie Zhang 0048, Sungjoon Koh, Wonil Choi, Nam Sung Kim, Mahmut T. Kandemir, Myoungsoo Jung |
MICRO | 4 |
| 2018 | FlashShare: Punching Through Server Storage Stack from Kernel to Firmware for Ultra-Low Latency SSDs
Jie Zhang 0048, Miryeong Kwon, Donghyun Gouk, Sungjoon Koh, Changlim Lee, Mohammad Alian, Myoungjun Chun, Mahmut T. Kandemir, Nam Sung Kim, Jihong Kim 0001, Myoungsoo Jung |
OSDI | 4 |