Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Shehbaz Jaffer
dblp:154/0884
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
6as first author
3since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0002-3294-911XORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Systems, architecture and hardware · 7 · 6 first-author · 3 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 first-author · 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
5 papers |
Storage systems · 91% Performance modeling and evaluation · 5% Hardware reliability and fault tolerance · 4% |
Topics — the 19 heaviest of 19, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Storage systems › non-volatile memory storage
write-once-memory code |
1.1 | 2 | 2022 | Improving the Endurance of Next Generation SSD's using WOM-v Codes · ACM Trans. Storage 2022 Improving the Reliability of Next Generation SSDs using WOM-v Codes · FAST 2022 |
Storage systems
storage reliability |
1.1 | 3 | 2022 | Improving the Reliability of Next Generation SSDs using WOM-v Codes · FAST 2022 Evaluating File System Reliability on Solid State Drives · USENIX ATC 2019 Improving the Endurance of Next Generation SSD's using WOM-v Codes · ACM Trans. Storage 2022 |
Storage systems › flash and SSD
SSD reliability |
1.0 | 2 | 2022 | Improving the Reliability of Next Generation SSDs using WOM-v Codes · FAST 2022 The Reliability of Modern File Systems in the face of SSD Errors · ACM Trans. Storage 2020 |
Storage systems
flash and SSD |
0.7 | 2 | 2022 | Improving the Reliability of Next Generation SSDs using WOM-v Codes · FAST 2022 Evaluating File System Reliability on Solid State Drives · USENIX ATC 2019 |
Storage systems › flash and SSD
solid-state drive |
0.6 | 2 | 2021 | SSD-based Workload Characteristics and Their Performance Implications · ACM Trans. Storage 2021 The Reliability of Modern File Systems in the face of SSD Errors · ACM Trans. Storage 2020 |
Storage systems › storage reliability
erasure coding |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Improving the Reliability of Next Generation SSDs using WOM-v Codes · FAST 2022 |
Storage systems › flash and SSD › flash memory
flash storage |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Improving the Endurance of Next Generation SSD's using WOM-v Codes · ACM Trans. Storage 2022 |
Storage systems › flash and SSD › flash memory management
garbage collection |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Improving the Endurance of Next Generation SSD's using WOM-v Codes · ACM Trans. Storage 2022 |
Storage systems › flash and SSD › SSD reliability
SSD lifetime |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Improving the Endurance of Next Generation SSD's using WOM-v Codes · ACM Trans. Storage 2022 |
Storage systems
i/o workload characterization |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | SSD-based Workload Characteristics and Their Performance Implications · ACM Trans. Storage 2021 |
Performance modeling and evaluation
workload characterization |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | SSD-based Workload Characteristics and Their Performance Implications · ACM Trans. Storage 2021 |
Storage systems
crash consistency |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | The Reliability of Modern File Systems in the face of SSD Errors · ACM Trans. Storage 2020 |
Hardware reliability and fault tolerance
fault injection |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | The Reliability of Modern File Systems in the face of SSD Errors · ACM Trans. Storage 2020 |
Storage systems
file systems |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | The Reliability of Modern File Systems in the face of SSD Errors · ACM Trans. Storage 2020 |
Storage systems › file systems
journaling file system |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | The Reliability of Modern File Systems in the face of SSD Errors · ACM Trans. Storage 2020 |
Storage systems › storage reliability
file system reliability |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Evaluating File System Reliability on Solid State Drives · USENIX ATC 2019 |
Storage systems › flash and SSD › flash memory › flash storage
program/erase cycles |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Improving the Endurance of Next Generation SSD's using WOM-v Codes · ACM Trans. Storage 2022 |
Storage systems › flash and SSD
flash memory |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | SSD-based Workload Characteristics and Their Performance Implications · ACM Trans. Storage 2021 |
Storage systems › flash and SSD › flash memory management › garbage collection
write amplification |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | SSD-based Workload Characteristics and Their Performance Implications · ACM Trans. Storage 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
analytical modeling · 0.6WOM-v codes · 0.6FEMU simulation · 0.6trace analysis · 0.5simulation · 0.5fault injection framework · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Improving the Reliability of Next Generation SSDs using WOM-v Codes
Shehbaz Jaffer, Kaveh Mahdaviani, Bianca Schroeder |
FAST | 1 |
| 2022 | Improving the Endurance of Next Generation SSD's using WOM-v CodesabstractHigh density Solid State Drives, such as QLC drives, offer increased storage capacity, but a magnitude lower Program and Erase (P/E) cycles, limiting their endurance and hence usability. We present the design and implementation of non-binary, Voltage-Based Write-Once-Memory (WOM-v) Codes to improve the lifetime of QLC drives. First, we develop a FEMU based simulator test-bed to evaluate the gains of WOM-v codes on real world workloads. Second, we propose and implement two optimizations, an efficient garbage collection mechanism and an encoding optimization to drastically improve WOM-v code endurance without compromising performance. Third, we propose analytical approaches to obtain estimates of the endurance gains under WOM-v codes. We analyze the Greedy garbage collection technique with uniform page access distribution and the Least Recently Written (LRW) garbage collection technique with skewed page access distribution in the context of WOM-v codes. We find that although both approaches overestimate the number of required erase operations, the model based on greedy garbage collection with uniform page access distribution provides tighter bounds. A careful evaluation, including microbenchmarks and trace-driven evaluation, demonstrates that WOM-v codes can reduce Erase cycles for QLC drives by 4.4×–11.1× for real world workloads with minimal performance overheads resulting in improved QLC SSD lifetime. Shehbaz Jaffer, Kaveh Mahdaviani, Bianca Schroeder |
ACM Trans. Storage | 1 |
| 2021 | SSD-based Workload Characteristics and Their Performance ImplicationsabstractStorage systems are designed and optimized relying on wisdom derived from analysis studies of file-system and block-level workloads. However, while SSDs are becoming a dominant building block in many storage systems, their design continues to build on knowledge derived from analysis targeted at hard disk optimization. Though still valuable, it does not cover important aspects relevant for SSD performance. In a sense, we are “searching under the streetlight,” possibly missing important opportunities for optimizing storage system design. We present the first I/O workload analysis designed with SSDs in mind. We characterize traces from four repositories and examine their “temperature” ranges, sensitivity to page size, and “logical locality.” We then take the first step towards correlating these characteristics with three standard performance metrics: write amplification, read amplification, and flash read costs. Our results show that SSD-specific characteristics strongly affect performance, often in surprising ways. Gala Yadgar, Moshe Gabel, Shehbaz Jaffer, Bianca Schroeder |
ACM Trans. Storage | 3 |
| 2020 | Rethinking WOM Codes to Enhance the Lifetime in New SSD Generations
Shehbaz Jaffer, Kaveh Mahdaviani, Bianca Schroeder |
HotStorage | 1 |
| 2020 | The Reliability of Modern File Systems in the face of SSD ErrorsabstractAs solid state drives (SSDs) are increasingly replacing hard disk drives, the reliability of storage systems depends on the failure modes of SSDs and the ability of the file system layered on top to handle these failure modes. While the classical paper on IRON File Systems provides a thorough study of the failure policies of three file systems common at the time, we argue that 13 years later it is time to revisit file system reliability with SSDs and their reliability characteristics in mind, based on modern file systems that incorporate journaling, copy-on-write, and log-structured approaches and are optimized for flash. This article presents a detailed study, spanning ext4, Btrfs, and F2FS, and covering a number of different SSD error modes. We develop our own fault injection framework and explore over 1,000 error cases. Our results indicate that 16% of these cases result in a file system that cannot be mounted or even repaired by its system checker. We also identify the key file system metadata structures that can cause such failures, and, finally, we recommend some design guidelines for file systems that are deployed on top of SSDs. Shehbaz Jaffer, Stathis Maneas, Andy A. Hwang, Bianca Schroeder |
ACM Trans. Storage | 1 |
| 2019 | Evaluating File System Reliability on Solid State Drives
Shehbaz Jaffer, Stathis Maneas, Andy A. Hwang, Bianca Schroeder |
USENIX ATC | 1 |
| 2015 | Improving Remote Desktopping Through Adaptive Record/ReplayabstractAccessing the display of a computer remotely, is popularly called remote desktopping. Remote desktopping software installs at both the user-facing client computer and the remote server computer; it simulates user's input events at server, and streams the corresponding display changes to client, thus providing an illusion to the user of controlling the remote machine using local input devices (e.g., keyboard/mouse). Many such remote desktopping tools are widely used. We show that if the remote server is a virtual machine (VM) and the client is reasonably powerful (e.g., current laptop and desktop grade hardware), VM deterministic replay capabilities can be used adaptively to significantly reduce the network bandwidth consumption and server-side CPU utilization of a remote desktopping tool. We implement these optimizations in a tool based on Qemu/KVM virtualization platform and VNC remote desktopping platform. Our tool reduces VNC's network bandwidth consumption by up to 9x and server-side CPU utilization by up to 56% for popular graphics-intensive applications. On the flip side, our techniques consume higher CPU/memory/disk resources at the client. The effect of our optimizations on user-perceived latency is negligible. Shehbaz Jaffer, Piyus Kedia, Sorav Bansal |
VEE | 1 |