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

Wittawat Tantisiriroj

dblp:52/10441 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
—ORCID · none

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

Systems, architecture and hardware · 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
1 paper
Storage systems · 91% High-performance computing · 9%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Storage systems › file systems › distributed file system
cloud file system
0.112011
On the duality of data-intensive file system design: reconciling HDFS and PVFS · SC 2011
Storage systems › file systems
distributed file system
0.112011
On the duality of data-intensive file system design: reconciling HDFS and PVFS · SC 2011
Storage systems › file systems › distributed file system
parallel file system
0.112011
On the duality of data-intensive file system design: reconciling HDFS and PVFS · SC 2011
High-performance computing
data-intensive computing
0.012011
On the duality of data-intensive file system design: reconciling HDFS and PVFS · SC 2011

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

replication · 0.1performance benchmarking · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2011 YCSB++: benchmarking and performance debugging advanced features in scalable table stores
abstract
Inspired by Google's BigTable, a variety of scalable, semi-structured, weak-semantic table stores have been developed and optimized for different priorities such as query speed, ingest speed, availability, and interactivity. As these systems mature, performance benchmarking will advance from measuring the rate of simple workloads to understanding and debugging the performance of advanced features such as ingest speed-up techniques and function shipping filters from client to servers. This paper describes YCSB++, a set of extensions to the Yahoo! Cloud Serving Benchmark (YCSB) to improve performance understanding and debugging of these advanced features. YCSB++ includes multi-tester coordination for increased load and eventual consistency measurement, multi-phase workloads to quantify the consequences of work deferment and the benefits of anticipatory configuration optimization such as B-tree pre-splitting or bulk loading, and abstract APIs for explicit incorporation of advanced features in benchmark tests. To enhance performance debugging, we customized an existing cluster monitoring tool to gather the internal statistics of YCSB++, table stores, system services like HDFS, and operating systems, and to offer easy post-test correlation and reporting of performance behaviors. YCSB++ features are illustrated in case studies of two BigTable-like table stores, Apache HBase and Accumulo, developed to emphasize high ingest rates and finegrained security.
Swapnil Patil 0001, Milo Polte, Kai Ren 0001, Wittawat Tantisiriroj, Julio López 0002, Garth A. Gibson, Adam Fuchs, Billie Rinaldi
SoCC4
2011 On the duality of data-intensive file system design: reconciling HDFS and PVFS
abstract
Data-intensive applications fall into two computing styles: Internet services (cloud computing) or high-performance computing (HPC). In both categories, the underlying file system is a key component for scalable application performance. In this paper, we explore the similarities and differences between PVFS, a parallel file system used in HPC at large scale, and HDFS, the primary storage system used in cloud computing with Hadoop. We integrate PVFS into Hadoop and compare its performance to HDFS using a set of data-intensive computing benchmarks. We study how HDFS-specific optimizations can be matched using PVFS and how consistency, durability, and persistence tradeoffs made by these file systems affect application performance. We show how to embed multiple replicas into a PVFS file, including a mapping with a complete copy local to the writing client, to emulate HDFS's file layout policies. We also highlight implementation issues with HDFS's dependence on disk bandwidth and benefits from pipelined replication.
Wittawat Tantisiriroj, Seung Woo Son 0001, Swapnil Patil 0001, Samuel Lang, Garth A. Gibson, Robert B. Ross
SC1