Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Soujanya Ponnapalli
dblp:223/0854
· DBLP profile ↗
12ranked-venue papers
1as first author
9since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0006-1449-1447ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Systems, architecture and hardware · 4 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 4 · 4 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 2 since 2021Computer networks · 1 · 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
8 papers |
Storage systems · 55% Cloud and datacenter computing · 16% Memory systems · 10% | |
| Network and information security
2 papers |
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security · 67% Privacy and data protection · 33% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers |
Software testing · 100% |
Topics — the 26 heaviest of 31, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cloud and datacenter computing
cloud storage |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Holographic Storage for the Cloud: advances and challenges · ACM Trans. Storage 2025 |
Storage systems › optical storage
holographic memory |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Holographic Storage for the Cloud: advances and challenges · ACM Trans. Storage 2025 |
Cloud and datacenter computing › cloud storage
multi-cloud storage |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | SkyStore: Cost-Optimized Object Storage Across Regions and Clouds · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2025 |
Storage systems
object storage |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | SkyStore: Cost-Optimized Object Storage Across Regions and Clouds · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2025 |
Interconnection networks and networks-on-chip
spatial multiplexing |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Holographic Storage for the Cloud: advances and challenges · ACM Trans. Storage 2025 |
Storage systems › storage device technology
storage density |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Holographic Storage for the Cloud: advances and challenges · ACM Trans. Storage 2025 |
Storage systems
crash consistency |
0.7 | 2 | 2019 | CrashMonkey and ACE: Systematically Testing File-System Crash Consistency · ACM Trans. Storage 2019 Finding Crash-Consistency Bugs with Bounded Black-Box Crash Testing · OSDI 2018 |
Storage systems
key-value storage |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | DINOMO: An Elastic, Scalable, High-Performance Key-Value Store for Disaggregated Persistent Memory · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2022 |
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security
blockchain scalability |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | RainBlock: Faster Transaction Processing in Public Blockchains · USENIX ATC 2021 |
Privacy and data protection
policy compliance |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Software-Defined Data Protection: Low Overhead Policy Compliance at the Storage Layer is Within Reach! · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2021 |
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security › blockchain performance
transaction processing |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | RainBlock: Faster Transaction Processing in Public Blockchains · USENIX ATC 2021 |
Memory systems › memory management › virtual memory
huge pages |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | WineFS: a hugepage-aware file system for persistent memory that ages gracefully · SOSP 2021 |
Storage systems › file systems › file system design
persistent memory file system |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | WineFS: a hugepage-aware file system for persistent memory that ages gracefully · SOSP 2021 |
Memory systems › memory management
virtual memory |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | WineFS: a hugepage-aware file system for persistent memory that ages gracefully · SOSP 2021 |
Software testing › system software testing
crash consistency testing |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | CrashMonkey and ACE: Systematically Testing File-System Crash Consistency · ACM Trans. Storage 2019 |
Software testing › system software testing
file system testing |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | CrashMonkey and ACE: Systematically Testing File-System Crash Consistency · ACM Trans. Storage 2019 |
Software testing
test generation |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | CrashMonkey and ACE: Systematically Testing File-System Crash Consistency · ACM Trans. Storage 2019 |
Storage systems
file systems |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | CrashMonkey and ACE: Systematically Testing File-System Crash Consistency · ACM Trans. Storage 2019 |
Storage systems › crash consistency
crash-consistency bug detection |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Finding Crash-Consistency Bugs with Bounded Black-Box Crash Testing · OSDI 2018 |
Storage systems
storage reliability |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Finding Crash-Consistency Bugs with Bounded Black-Box Crash Testing · OSDI 2018 |
Energy-efficient computing
storage energy efficiency |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Holographic Storage for the Cloud: advances and challenges · ACM Trans. Storage 2025 |
Memory systems › non-volatile memory
persistent memory |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | DINOMO: An Elastic, Scalable, High-Performance Key-Value Store for Disaggregated Persistent Memory · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2022 |
Distributed systems › fault tolerance
byzantine fault tolerance |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | RainBlock: Faster Transaction Processing in Public Blockchains · USENIX ATC 2021 |
Distributed systems
consensus |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | RainBlock: Faster Transaction Processing in Public Blockchains · USENIX ATC 2021 |
Storage systems › file systems › file system performance
file system aging |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | WineFS: a hugepage-aware file system for persistent memory that ages gracefully · SOSP 2021 |
Software testing
black-box testing |
0.1 | 1 | 2018 | Finding Crash-Consistency Bugs with Bounded Black-Box Crash Testing · OSDI 2018 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
workload-driven optimization · 0.9replication · 0.9physics modeling · 0.9machine learning · 0.9TTL-based placement · 0.9record and replay · 0.8bounded black-box testing · 0.8selective replication · 0.6log-free indexing · 0.6lock-free indexing · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Supporting Our AI Overlords: Redesigning Data Systems to be Agent-First
Soujanya Ponnapalli, Shreya Shankar, Sepanta Zeighami, Alan Zhu 0001, Shubham Agarwal 0007, Samion Suwito, Ion Stoica, Matei Zaharia, Alvin Cheung, Natacha Crooks, Joseph Gonzalez 0001, Aditya G. Parameswaran |
CIDR | 2 |
| 2025 | Lost in Translation: The Search for Meaning in Network-Attached AI Accelerator DisaggregationabstractDatacenters often underutilize expensive AI accelerators (GPUs, TPUs, etc). A natural solution is disaggregation, where servers borrow network-attached accelerators on demand. However, current approaches to disaggregation suffer from a semantic translation gap: as computation descends the software stack, critical application knowledge—like model structure or execution phases—is lost. This forces an undesirable choice between low-level, general-purpose systems that are semantically-blind and inefficient, and high-level, single-workload systems that are efficient but not general. Jaewan Hong, Yifan Qiao 0002, Soujanya Ponnapalli, Marcos K. Aguilera, Vincent Liu 0001, Christopher J. Rossbach, Ion Stoica |
HotNets | 3 |
| 2025 | Real Life Is Uncertain. Consensus Should Be Too!abstractModern distributed systems rely on consensus protocols to build a fault-tolerant-core upon which they can build applications. Consensus protocols are correct under a specific failure model, where up to f machines can fail. We argue that this f -threshold failure model oversimplifies the real world and limits potential opportunities to optimize for cost or performance. We argue instead for a probabilistic failure model that captures the complex and nuanced nature of faults observed in practice. Probabilistic consensus protocols can explicitly leverage individual machine failure curves and explore side-stepping traditional bottlenecks such as majority quorum intersection, enabling systems that are more reliable, efficient, cost-effective, and sustainable. Reginald Frank, Octavio Lomeli, Neil Giridharan, Soujanya Ponnapalli, Marcos K. Aguilera, Natacha Crooks |
HotOS | 4 |
| 2025 | SkyStore: Cost-Optimized Object Storage Across Regions and CloudsabstractModern applications span multiple clouds to reduce costs, avoid vendor lock-in, and leverage low-availability resources in another cloud. However, standard object stores operate within a single cloud, forcing users to manually manage data placement across clouds, i.e., navigate their diverse APIs and handle heterogeneous costs for network and storage. This is often a complex choice: users must either pay to store objects in a remote cloud, or pay to transfer them over the network based on application access patterns and cloud provider cost offerings. To address this, we present SkyStore, a unified object store that addresses cost-optimal data management across regions and clouds. SkyStore introduces a virtual object and bucket API to hide the complexity of interacting with multiple clouds. At its core, SkyStore has a novel TTL-based data placement policy that dynamically replicates and evicts objects according to application access patterns while optimizing for lower cost. Our evaluation shows that across various workloads, SkyStore reduces the overall cost by up to 6X over academic baselines and commercial alternatives like AWS multi-region buckets. SkyStore also has comparable latency, and its availability and fault tolerance are on par with standard cloud offerings. Xiangxi Mo, Moshe Hershcovitch, Henric Zhang, Audrey Cheng, Guy Girmonsky, Gil Vernik, Michael Factor, Tiemo Bang, Soujanya Ponnapalli, Natacha Crooks, Joseph Gonzalez 0001, Danny Harnik, Ion Stoica |
Proc. VLDB Endow. | 10 |
| 2025 | Holographic Storage for the Cloud: advances and challengesabstractHolographic Storage is an old idea that has always promised high density and fast random access, but has never been commercially competitive with Hard Disk Drives (HDDs) and Solid State Devices (SSDs). In Project HSD at Microsoft Research we asked the question: “Does holographic storage finally make sense for cloud storage?” This article describes our journey toward answering this question. We achieved 1.8× higher density than the previous state-of-the-art, using commodity components available today and leveraging machine learning to compensate for the noise and distortions introduced by commodity components. This uncovered two new challenges which are the focus of this article: achieving high end-to-end energy efficiency without sacrificing capacity, and spatial multiplexing without mechanical movement. Improving end-to-end energy efficiency requires joint optimization across low-level media parameters and higher-level system parameters that govern background maintenance operations such as read refresh and garbage collection. We developed new physics models of the media; analytic and simulation models of the media access and background media maintenance; and workload-driven optimization to find optimal parameter combinations. These techniques resulted in a 14× improvement over the previous approach for typical workloads without sacrificing capacity. We also designed the first scalable and mechanical movement free spatial multiplexing system for holographic storage. Despite these advances, we conclude that currently, holographic storage is still far from the combination of density, capacity scaling, and energy efficiency needed to compete with the incumbent technologies. We need fundamental advances in the physical media that improve energy efficiency by another 1–2 orders of magnitude without reducing data density. Further advances in optics are also required to achieve spatial multiplexing that is simultaneously scalable, low-loss, and high-density. Nathanael Cheriere, Jiaqi Chu, Grace Brennan, Pashmina Cameron, Pedro Da Costa, Jannes Gladrow, Guilherme Ilunga, Douglas J. Kelly, Joowon Lim, Giorgio Maltese, Tony Mason, Greg O'Shea, Soujanya Ponnapalli, Michael Rudow, Alan Sanders, Theano Stavrinos, Xingbo Wu, Mengyang Yang, Dushyanth Narayanan, Benn C. Thomsen, Antony I. T. Rowstron |
ACM Trans. Storage | 14 |
| 2022 | DINOMO: An Elastic, Scalable, High-Performance Key-Value Store for Disaggregated Persistent MemoryabstractWe present Dinomo, a novel key-value store for disaggregated persistent memory (DPM). Dinomo is the first key-value store for DPM that simultaneously achieves high common-case performance, scalability, and lightweight online reconfiguration. We observe that previously proposed key-value stores for DPM had architectural limitations that prevent them from achieving all three goals simultaneously. Dinomo uses a novel combination of techniques such as ownership partitioning, disaggregated adaptive caching, selective replication, and lock-free and log-free indexing to achieve these goals. Compared to a state-of-the-art DPM key-value store, Dinomo achieves at least 3.8X better throughput at scale on various workloads and higher scalability, while providing fast reconfiguration. Se Kwon Lee, Soujanya Ponnapalli, Sharad Singhal, Marcos K. Aguilera, Kimberly Keeton, Vijay Chidambaram |
Proc. VLDB Endow. | 2 |
| 2021 | WineFS: a hugepage-aware file system for persistent memory that ages gracefullyabstractModern persistent-memory (PM) file systems perform well in benchmark settings, when the file system is freshly created and empty. But after being aged by usage, as will be the normal mode in practice, their memory-mapped performance degrades significantly. This paper shows that the cause is their inability to use 2MB hugepages to map files when aged, having to use 4KB pages instead and suffering many extra page faults and TLB misses as a result. Rohan Kadekodi, Saurabh Kadekodi, Soujanya Ponnapalli, Harshad Shirwadkar, Gregory R. Ganger, Aasheesh Kolli, Vijay Chidambaram |
SOSP | 3 |
| 2021 | RainBlock: Faster Transaction Processing in Public Blockchains
Soujanya Ponnapalli, Aashaka Shah, Souvik Banerjee, Dahlia Malkhi, Amy Tai, Vijay Chidambaram, Michael Wei |
USENIX ATC | 1 |
| 2021 | Software-Defined Data Protection: Low Overhead Policy Compliance at the Storage Layer is Within Reach!abstractMost modern data processing pipelines run on top of a distributed storage layer, and securing the whole system, and the storage layer in particular, against accidental or malicious misuse is crucial to ensuring compliance to rules and regulations. Enforcing data protection and privacy rules, however, stands at odds with the requirement to achieve higher and higher access bandwidths and processing rates in large data processing pipelines. In this work we describe our proposal for the path forward that reconciles the two goals. We call our approach "Software-Defined Data Protection" (SDP). Its premise is simple, yet powerful: decoupling often changing policies from request-level enforcement allows distributed smart storage nodes to implement the latter at line-rate. Existing and future data protection frameworks can be translated to the same hardware interface which allows storage nodes to offload enforcement efficiently both for company-specific rules and regulations, such as GDPR or CCPA. While SDP is a promising approach, there are several remaining challenges to making this vision reality. As we explain in the paper, overcoming these will require collaboration across several domains, including security, databases and specialized hardware design. Zsolt István, Soujanya Ponnapalli, Vijay Chidambaram |
Proc. VLDB Endow. | 2 |
| 2019 | CrashMonkey and ACE: Systematically Testing File-System Crash ConsistencyabstractWe present C rash M onkey and A ce , a set of tools to systematically find crash-consistency bugs in Linux file systems. C rash M onkey is a record-and-replay framework which tests a given workload on the target file system by simulating power-loss crashes while the workload is being executed, and checking if the file system recovers to a correct state after each crash. A ce automatically generates all the workloads to be run on the target file system. We build C rash M onkey and A ce based on a new approach to test file-system crash consistency: bounded black-box crash testing ( B 3 ). B 3 tests the file system in a black-box manner using workloads of file-system operations. Since the space of possible workloads is infinite, B 3 bounds this space based on parameters such as the number of file-system operations or which operations to include, and exhaustively generates workloads within this bounded space. B 3 builds upon insights derived from our study of crash-consistency bugs reported in Linux file systems in the last 5 years. We observed that most reported bugs can be reproduced using small workloads of three or fewer file-system operations on a newly created file system, and that all reported bugs result from crashes after fsync()-related system calls. C rash M onkey and A ce are able to find 24 out of the 26 crash-consistency bugs reported in the last 5 years. Our tools also revealed 10 new crash-consistency bugs in widely used, mature Linux file systems, 7 of which existed in the kernel since 2014. Additionally, our tools found a crash-consistency bug in a verified file system, FSCQ. The new bugs result in severe consequences like broken rename atomicity, loss of persisted files and directories, and data loss. Jayashree Mohan, Ashlie Martinez, Soujanya Ponnapalli, Pandian Raju, Vijay Chidambaram |
ACM Trans. Storage | 3 |
| 2018 | mLSM: Making Authenticated Storage Faster in Ethereum
Pandian Raju, Soujanya Ponnapalli, Evan Kaminsky, Gilad Oved, Zachary Keener, Vijay Chidambaram, Ittai Abraham |
HotStorage | 2 |
| 2018 | Finding Crash-Consistency Bugs with Bounded Black-Box Crash Testing
Jayashree Mohan, Ashlie Martinez, Soujanya Ponnapalli, Pandian Raju, Vijay Chidambaram |
OSDI | 3 |