仿射和PDAM模型中的外部内存字典

Pub Date : 2021-09-20 DOI:10.1145/3470635
M. A. Bender, Alex Conway, Martín Farach-Colton, William Jannen, Yizheng Jiao, Rob Johnson, Eric Knorr, Sara McAllister, Nirjhar Mukherjee, P. Pandey, Donald E. Porter, Jun Yuan, Yang Zhan
{"title":"仿射和PDAM模型中的外部内存字典","authors":"M. A. Bender, Alex Conway, Martín Farach-Colton, William Jannen, Yizheng Jiao, Rob Johnson, Eric Knorr, Sara McAllister, Nirjhar Mukherjee, P. Pandey, Donald E. Porter, Jun Yuan, Yang Zhan","doi":"10.1145/3470635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Storage devices have complex performance profiles, including costs to initiate IOs (e.g., seek times in hard drives), parallelism and bank conflicts (in SSDs), costs to transfer data, and firmware-internal operations. The Disk-access Machine (DAM) model simplifies reality by assuming that storage devices transfer data in blocks of size B and that all transfers have unit cost. Despite its simplifications, the DAM model is reasonably accurate. In fact, if B is set to the half-bandwidth point, where the latency and bandwidth of the hardware are equal, then the DAM approximates the IO cost on any hardware to within a factor of 2. Furthermore, the DAM model explains the popularity of B-trees in the 1970s and the current popularity of Bɛ-trees and log-structured merge trees. But it fails to explain why some B-trees use small nodes, whereas all Bɛ-trees use large nodes. In a DAM, all IOs, and hence all nodes, are the same size. In this article, we show that the affine and PDAM models, which are small refinements of the DAM model, yield a surprisingly large improvement in predictability without sacrificing ease of use. We present benchmarks on a large collection of storage devices showing that the affine and PDAM models give good approximations of the performance characteristics of hard drives and SSDs, respectively. We show that the affine model explains node-size choices in B-trees and Bɛ-trees. Furthermore, the models predict that B-trees are highly sensitive to variations in the node size, whereas Bɛ-trees are much less sensitive. These predictions are born out empirically. Finally, we show that in both the affine and PDAM models, it pays to organize data structures to exploit varying IO size. In the affine model, Bɛ-trees can be optimized so that all operations are simultaneously optimal, even up to lower-order terms. In the PDAM model, Bɛ-trees (or B-trees) can be organized so that both sequential and concurrent workloads are handled efficiently. We conclude that the DAM model is useful as a first cut when designing or analyzing an algorithm or data structure but the affine and PDAM models enable the algorithm designer to optimize parameter choices and fill in design details.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"External-memory Dictionaries in the Affine and PDAM Models\",\"authors\":\"M. A. Bender, Alex Conway, Martín Farach-Colton, William Jannen, Yizheng Jiao, Rob Johnson, Eric Knorr, Sara McAllister, Nirjhar Mukherjee, P. Pandey, Donald E. Porter, Jun Yuan, Yang Zhan\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3470635\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Storage devices have complex performance profiles, including costs to initiate IOs (e.g., seek times in hard drives), parallelism and bank conflicts (in SSDs), costs to transfer data, and firmware-internal operations. The Disk-access Machine (DAM) model simplifies reality by assuming that storage devices transfer data in blocks of size B and that all transfers have unit cost. Despite its simplifications, the DAM model is reasonably accurate. In fact, if B is set to the half-bandwidth point, where the latency and bandwidth of the hardware are equal, then the DAM approximates the IO cost on any hardware to within a factor of 2. Furthermore, the DAM model explains the popularity of B-trees in the 1970s and the current popularity of Bɛ-trees and log-structured merge trees. But it fails to explain why some B-trees use small nodes, whereas all Bɛ-trees use large nodes. In a DAM, all IOs, and hence all nodes, are the same size. In this article, we show that the affine and PDAM models, which are small refinements of the DAM model, yield a surprisingly large improvement in predictability without sacrificing ease of use. We present benchmarks on a large collection of storage devices showing that the affine and PDAM models give good approximations of the performance characteristics of hard drives and SSDs, respectively. We show that the affine model explains node-size choices in B-trees and Bɛ-trees. Furthermore, the models predict that B-trees are highly sensitive to variations in the node size, whereas Bɛ-trees are much less sensitive. These predictions are born out empirically. Finally, we show that in both the affine and PDAM models, it pays to organize data structures to exploit varying IO size. In the affine model, Bɛ-trees can be optimized so that all operations are simultaneously optimal, even up to lower-order terms. In the PDAM model, Bɛ-trees (or B-trees) can be organized so that both sequential and concurrent workloads are handled efficiently. We conclude that the DAM model is useful as a first cut when designing or analyzing an algorithm or data structure but the affine and PDAM models enable the algorithm designer to optimize parameter choices and fill in design details.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3470635\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3470635","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

存储设备具有复杂的性能配置文件,包括启动IOs的成本(例如,硬盘驱动器中的寻道时间)、并行性和银行冲突(在ssd中)、传输数据的成本以及固件内部操作。磁盘访问机(DAM)模型通过假设存储设备以大小为B的块传输数据,并且所有传输都具有单位成本,从而简化了现实。尽管进行了简化,但DAM模型还是相当准确的。实际上,如果将B设置为半带宽点,即硬件的延迟和带宽相等,则DAM将任何硬件上的IO成本近似为2倍以内。此外,DAM模型解释了20世纪70年代B树的流行以及当前B树和日志结构合并树的流行。但它无法解释为什么有些B树使用小节点,而所有B树都使用大节点。在DAM中,所有IOs以及所有节点的大小都是相同的。在本文中,我们展示了仿射模型和PDAM模型,它们是DAM模型的小改进,在不牺牲易用性的情况下,在可预测性方面产生了惊人的巨大改进。我们提供了大量存储设备的基准测试,表明仿射和PDAM模型分别很好地近似了硬盘驱动器和ssd的性能特征。我们证明了仿射模型解释了B树和B树的节点大小选择。此外,模型预测B树对节点大小的变化高度敏感,而B树则不那么敏感。这些预测都是凭经验得出的。最后,我们证明了在仿射和PDAM模型中,组织数据结构以利用不同的IO大小是值得的。在仿射模型中,B树可以被优化,使所有的操作同时是最优的,即使是低阶项。在PDAM模型中,可以组织B树(或B树),以便有效地处理顺序和并发工作负载。我们得出结论,DAM模型在设计或分析算法或数据结构时是有用的,但仿射和PDAM模型使算法设计者能够优化参数选择和填充设计细节。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
External-memory Dictionaries in the Affine and PDAM Models
Storage devices have complex performance profiles, including costs to initiate IOs (e.g., seek times in hard drives), parallelism and bank conflicts (in SSDs), costs to transfer data, and firmware-internal operations. The Disk-access Machine (DAM) model simplifies reality by assuming that storage devices transfer data in blocks of size B and that all transfers have unit cost. Despite its simplifications, the DAM model is reasonably accurate. In fact, if B is set to the half-bandwidth point, where the latency and bandwidth of the hardware are equal, then the DAM approximates the IO cost on any hardware to within a factor of 2. Furthermore, the DAM model explains the popularity of B-trees in the 1970s and the current popularity of Bɛ-trees and log-structured merge trees. But it fails to explain why some B-trees use small nodes, whereas all Bɛ-trees use large nodes. In a DAM, all IOs, and hence all nodes, are the same size. In this article, we show that the affine and PDAM models, which are small refinements of the DAM model, yield a surprisingly large improvement in predictability without sacrificing ease of use. We present benchmarks on a large collection of storage devices showing that the affine and PDAM models give good approximations of the performance characteristics of hard drives and SSDs, respectively. We show that the affine model explains node-size choices in B-trees and Bɛ-trees. Furthermore, the models predict that B-trees are highly sensitive to variations in the node size, whereas Bɛ-trees are much less sensitive. These predictions are born out empirically. Finally, we show that in both the affine and PDAM models, it pays to organize data structures to exploit varying IO size. In the affine model, Bɛ-trees can be optimized so that all operations are simultaneously optimal, even up to lower-order terms. In the PDAM model, Bɛ-trees (or B-trees) can be organized so that both sequential and concurrent workloads are handled efficiently. We conclude that the DAM model is useful as a first cut when designing or analyzing an algorithm or data structure but the affine and PDAM models enable the algorithm designer to optimize parameter choices and fill in design details.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信