Classes:
Tuesdays and Thursdays,
A page with details on the class is here.
Who (click for slides)
|
Date
|
Topic
|
Required
|
Suggested
|
|
|
Organizational Meeting |
none |
Background materials for one of the ideas for a possible project |
|
|
Ken |
|
Concurrency, Threads, and Events. |
Using Threads in Interactive Systems. Hauser et al. 14th SOSP, Dec 1993. |
Goal-oriented programming, or composition using events,or threads considered harmful. Van Renesse. ACM SIGOPS European Workshop, Sep 1998. Eraser. A Dynamic Data Race Detector for Multi-Threaded Programs. Savage et al. 16th SOSP, 1997. |
|
SEDA: An Architecture for Well Conditioned, Scalable Internet Services. Welsh et al. 18th SOSP, Oct 2001. |
||||
|
Ken |
|
File Systems |
Soft Updates: A Solution to the Metadata Update problem in File Systems. Ganger et al. ACM TOCS 18(2). May 2000. |
A Fast File System for UNIX. McKusick et al. ACM TOCS 2(3), Aug 1984. The Zebra striped network file system; Hartman and Ousterhout; 14th SOSP, 1993. When to forget in the Elephant file system. Santry et al. 17th SOSP, 1999. |
|
The Design and Implementation of a Log-Structured File System. Rosenblum and Ousterhout. 13th SOSP, Oct 1991. |
||||
|
Ken |
|
OS Kernels |
The Performance of µ-Kernel-based Systems. Härtig et al. 16th SOSP, Oct 1997. |
The UNIX Time-Sharing System. Richie and Thompson. EMERALDS: A Small-Memory Real-Time Microkernel. Zuberi et al. 17th SOSP, 1999. |
|
The Flux OSKit: A Substrate for OS and Language Research. Ford et al. 16th SOSP, Oct 1997. |
||||
|
Ari Rabkin |
|
Virtual Memory |
Machine-Independent Virtual Memory Management for Paged Uniprocessor and Multiprocessor Machines, Rashid et al. IEEE TOC C-37(8), Aug 1988. |
Virtual Memory Primitives for User Programs. Appel and Li. 4th ASPLOS, April 1991. Sharing and Protection in a Single Address Space Operating System. Chase et al. ACM TOCS, November 1994. |
|
Labels and Event Processes in the Asbestos Operating System. Petros Efstathopoulos et. al. SOSP 2005 |
||||
|
|
|
Extensible Kernels |
Exokernel: an operating system architecture for application-level resource management. Engler et al. 15th SOSP, Dec 1995. |
Application performance and flexibility on Exokernel systems. Kaashoek et al. 16th SOSP, 1997. Microkernels meet Recursive Virtual Machines. Ford et al. 2nd
OSDI, Oct 1996. |
|
Extensibility, Safety and Performance in the SPIN Operating System. Bershad et al. 15th SOSP, Dec 1995. |
||||
|
Ken |
|
Multi-Processors |
Disco: Running Commodity Operating Systems on Scalable Multiprocessors. Bugnion et al. 16th SOSP, 1997. |
Towards Transparent and Efficient Software Distributed Shared Memory. Scales and Gharachorloo. 16th SOSP, 1997. Performance Isolation: Sharing and Isolation in Shared-Memory Multiprocessors. Verghese et al. 8th ASPLOS, Oct 1998. |
|
Tornado: maximizing locality and concurrency in a shared memory multiprocessor operating system. Gamsa et al. 3rd OSDI, Feb 1999. |
||||
|
Lakshmi Ganesh PDF |
|
Virtual Machine Monitors: Technology and Trends |
Xen and the Art of Virtualization, Dragovic, et. al. Proc 19th SOSP, Oct. 2003 |
Memory resource management in VMware ESX server, C. A. Waldspurger. OSDI 2002 Operating System Support for Virtual Machines, S. T. King, G. W. Dunlap, and P. M. Chen. 2003 USENIX Technical Conference, |
|
Virtual Machine Monitors: Current Technology and Future Trends, Mendel Rosenblum, Tal Garfinkel. Computer, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 39-47, May 2005; |
||||
|
|
|
If the CPU is so fast, why are the programs running so slowly? |
Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone? Jennifer M. Anderson et. al. ACM TOCS; 15:4 (Nov. 1997) |
Power Architecture: A High-Performance Architecture with a History. IBM Technical White Paper. Intel Pentium 4 Processor. Intel Technical White Paper |
|
System
Support for Automated Profiling and Optimization. Zhang, et. al. SOSP 1997 |
||||
|
Khawaja |
|
Remote method invocation: making distributed computing totally transparent… |
Implementing Remote Procedure Calls. Birrell and Nelson. ACM TOCS 2(1), Feb. 1984. |
RPC in the x-Kernel: Evaluating New Design Techniques. Peterson et al. 12th SOSP, Nov. 1989. |
|
Performance of Firefly RPC. Schroeder and Burrows. ACM TOCS 8(1), 1990. |
||||
|
David Crandall |
|
To infinity and beyond! |
U-Net:
A User-Level Network Interface for Parallel and Distributed
Computing. Von Eicken, Basu, Buch and Werner
Vogels. 15th SOSP, Dec1995, |
|
|
Lightweight remote procedure call; Bershad et al. ACM TOCS 8(1), Feb 1990. |
||||
|
Ken Amar Phanishayee’s 05 slides |
|
System Design |
Hints for Computer Systems Design. Lampson. ACM OSR 15(5), Oct 1983. |
The Impact of Architectural Trends on Operating System Performance. Rosenblum et al. 15th SOSP, 1995. Interposition Agents: Transparently Interposing User Code at the System Interface. Jones. 14th SOSP, 1993. |
|
End-to-End Arguments in System Design. Saltzer et al. ACM TOCS 2(4), Nov 1984. |
||||
|
Lucas Kroc |
|
Speculation |
Rethink the
Sync. Edmund B. Nightingale,
et. al. |
|
|
Speculative Execution in
a Distributed File System. Edmund B. Nightingale, Peter M Chen,
Jason Flinn. |
||||
|
Ymir Vigfusson |
|
Stopping Worm/Virus Attacks |
Vigilante: End-to-End Containment of Internet Worms. Manuel Costa et. al. SOSP 2005 |
The Taser Intrusion Recovery System. Ashvin Goel et. al. SOSP 2005 |
|
Scalability, Fidelity and Containment in the Potemkin Virtual Honeyfarm. Michael Vrable et. al. SOSP 2005 |
||||
|
Alex Emmet |
|
Network Objects |
Network Objects. Birrell et al. 14th SOSP, Dec 1993. |
Fine-Grained Mobility in the Emerald System The Jini architecture for network-centric computing. Waldo. CACM 42(7), Jul 1999. |
|
Linda in Context. Carriero and Gelernter. CACM 32(4), Apr 1989. |
||||
|
Ken Old Slide set by Aseem Bajaj |
|
Publish/Subscribe |
The Information Bus---an Architecture for Extensible Distributed Systems. Oki et al. 14th SOSP, Dec. 1993. |
Mesh-based Content Routing using XML. Snoeren et al. 18th SOSP, Oct 2001. Design and evaluation of a wide-area event notification service. Carzaniga et al. TOCS 19(3), Aug 2001. |
|
Matching Events in a Content-based Subscription System. Aguilera et al. 18th PODC, 1999. |
||||
|
Mahesh |
|
Staggeringly large file systems |
File and storage systems: The Google file system. Ghemawat, Gobioff, Leung. SOSP-19, Oct 2003. |
A Distributed Decentralized
Information Storage and Retrieval System. Ian Clark. Why Gnutella can't scale, no really? Ritter, Feb 2001. |
|
Storage management and caching in PAST, a large scale, persistent peer-to-peer storage utility. Rowstron and Druschel. 18th SOSP, Oct 2001. |
||||
|
Michael Siegenthaler |
|
Application-Level Multicast Routing |
Enabling Conferencing Applications on the Internet using an Overlay Multicast Architecture, Chu et al. ACM SIGCOMM, Aug 2001. |
SCRIBE: A large-scale and decentralized application-level multicast infrastructure. Castro et al. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in communications (JSAC), 2002. Something on BitTorrent... |
|
Overcast: Reliable Multicasting with an Overlay Network Jannotti et al. 4th OSDI, Dec 2000. |
||||
|
Mahesh |
|
Peer to peer dissemination |
Some observations on BitTorrent performance Ashwin R. Bharambe, Cormac Herley, Venkata N. Padmanabhan. SIGMETRICS 05. |
Resilient overlay networks. David Andersen, Hari Balakrishnan, Frans Kaashoek, Robert Morris. SOSP ‘01 |
|
SplitStream: high-bandwidth multicast in cooperative environments. Castro, et. al. SOSP 2003. |
||||
|
Ken |
|
Epidemic Techniques |
Epidemic algorithms for replicated database maintenance; Demers et al. 6th PODC, 1987. |
Kelips: Building an Efficient and Stable P2P DHT Through
Increased Memory and Background Overhead. Indranil Gupta, Ken Birman, Prakash Linga, Al Demers and Robbert
van Renesse. 2nd International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS
'03); Bimodal Multicast. Birman et al. ACM TOCS 17(2), May 1999. |
|
Astrolabe: A Robust and Scalable Technology for Distributed System Monitoring, Management, and Data Mining. Van Renesse et al. ACM TOCS 2003 (to appear). |
||||
|
Yogeshwer Sharma |
11/7 |
Ordering and Consistent Cuts |
Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System. Lamport. CACM 21(7). July 1978. |
|
|
Distributed snapshots: Determining global states of distributed systems. Chandy, Lamport. ACM TOCS 3(1), 1985, 63-75. |
||||
|
Mahesh |
11/9 |
Time |
Optimal Clock Synchronization. Srikanth and Toueg. JACM 34(3), July 1987. |
Understanding protocols for Byzantine Clock Synchronization. Schneider. Cornell CS TR 87-859. Aug 1987. Using Time Instead of Timeout for Fault-Tolerant Distributed Systems. Lamport. ACM TOPLAS 6:2, 1974 |
|
Probabilistic Internal Clock Synchronization. Cristian and Fetzer. |
||||
|
Ken |
11/14 |
Consensus |
Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process. Fisher et al. JACM 32(2), Apr 1985. |
Revisiting the Paxos Algorithm De Prisco et al. WDAG, Sep 1997. The weakest failure detector for solving consensus; Chandra et al. J. ACM 43, 4, Jul. 1996. |
|
Paxos Made Simple. Lamport. ACM SIGACT NEWS 32(4). Dec. 2001. |
||||
|
Ken |
11/16 |
Virtual Synchrony |
The Process Group Approach to Reliable Distributed Computing. Birman. CACM, Dec 1993, 36(12):37-53. |
A modular approach to fault-tolerant broadcast and related problems. Hadzilacos and Toueg. Cornell CS TR 94-1425,May 1994. Building
reliable, high-performance communication systems from components.
Liu et al. 17th SOSP, 1999. Ken’s slide set on Scalable Trusted Computing (Nov. 2006). This discusses the role of consensus and group communication in the context of an emerging problem, namely tracking a dynamically evolving security policy database. |
|
Understanding the Limitations of Causally and Totally Ordered Communication. Cheriton and Skeen. 14th SOSP, 1993. Note: This paper has
some flaws. Discussion and
rebuttals to some of the claims it makes appeared in the January 1994 issue
of Operating Systems Review |
||||
|
Ken |
11/21 |
Practical Replication |
Dangers of Replication and a Solution. Gray et al. ACM SIGMOD, Jun 1996. |
Maintaining Availability in
Partitioned Replicated Databases. Abbadi and Toueg. ACM TODS 14(2), Jun
1989. Robbert and Fred: Chain
Replication The Costs and Limits of Availability for Replicated Services. Yu and Vahdat. 18th SOSP, Oct 2001. |
|
Andrew Cunningham |
11/28 |
Byzantine Techniques (I) |
The Byzantine Generals Problem. Lamport et al. ACM TOPLAS 4, 1982. |
Randomized Byzantine Generals. Rabin. FOCS, 1983. Byzantine Quorum Systems. Malkhi and Reiter. |
|
Easy impossibility proofs for distributed consensus problems. Fischer, Lynch, Merritt PODC-4 (Minaki, Ontario), 1985 |
||||
|
Georgios Piliouras |
11/30 |
Byzantine Techniques (II) |
BAR Fault Tolerance for Cooperative Services. Amitanand S. Aiyer, et. al. (SOSP 2005) |
Fault-scalable Byzantine Fault-Tolerant Services. Michael Abd-El-Malek et.al. SOSP 2005 |
|
Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance. Castro and Liskov. 3rd OSDI, Feb 1999. |
How
to prepare a cs614 presentation
Each time we meet,
we’ll start with a fairly short presentation, lasting perhaps 45 minutes,
after which there will be a discussion lasting an additional half hour or
so. Preparing the lecture is a
significant challenge and you should expect to spend as much as a week or two
working on it before the date of your presentation.
For each date,
there are several suggested references.
Any one of these papers could be the subject of a full-length lecture in
itself, and several would take multiple lectures to
cover in any depth. Accordingly,
you face a tough choice: either learn to speak at an extremely rapid rate,
which will be completely incomprehensible, or select within the material,
focusing on a core aspect or idea and leaving the surrounding material for
others to either absorb simply by virtue of having done the readings, or to raise during the discussion.
Your choice of
material and approach to the presentation should satisfy several properties:
1)
Within 45 minutes you only have
time to convey a very small number of technical points. For example, you probably have time to
state a single theorem and to present its proof, but even if the paper contains
many theorems, unless they are very simple you won’t have time to talk
about more than one (perhaps two).
2)
Every talk needs to be placed in
context. You need to plan on
starting by spending at least a few minutes (10 would be a good estimate)
explaining what the problem attacked by the authors was, why this was an
important problem (what alternative ideas were being advanced at the time?) and
what prior work people need to be aware of. You should say enough about this prior
work to place the results you’ll focus on into a broader setting.
3)
You should tell us what
you’ll be telling us, but in a non-technical way. For example, if you are presenting the
“consistent cuts” paper, give some intuition into what a consistent
cut is all about before trying to define the idea formally. As you move into the formal material,
remind us of this intuition and show us how the formal definition captures the
intuitive one. Your job is to make
the formalism seem natural. If you
are talking about a systems result, try and talk about the thing the authors are
doing from a high level – why did this excite them, and the
community? What was the key
question they were interested by, and what was their “angle”?
4)
Now, perhaps 10 to 15 minutes
into your “slot” you’ll get to the more detailed
material. This is where you might
briefly explain a formalism and present a theorem and
its proof, or lay out the major architectural pieces of a system and explain
how they were put together.
5)
In the second half of the technical
part of your talk, you might illustrate the way that a proof works using a
small example, or present the experimental data associated with a systems
paper. Systems people tend to be
nearly obsessive about experimental data.
It should be presented lovingly with attention to the insights that can
only be gained by really building something and putting it through its
paces. Where are the fundamental
costs in an approach? How well does
it scale? Are their little warts
and hidden problems that the data reveals?
6)
In the final part of your talk,
you should wrap things together by reminding us what the original premise of
the paper you presented was, how the authors attacked the problem, and what the
data revealed about the limitations and successes of their approach. Express your opinions at this
stage. For a theory talk, try and
put the results back into the broader context. Do they say something broad and
powerful, or is the main insight narrow?
Your talk will need to be on Powerpoint slides (or some similar system, if you prefer
something else). Powerpoint makes suggestions about font sizes but in fact
you can certainly pack more on a slide than is possible using the intial choices.
Keep in mind that your audience has to be able to read the slides when
projected on a screen at a sensible size!
Either make plastic slides, or have your material on a laptop that can
connect to the overhead display system.
PLEASE DON’T MAKE US WAIT 10 MINUTES
WHILE YOU FIDDLE WITH CONNECTIONS AT THE START OF CLASS. COME EARLY AND MAKE SURE YOUR DISPLAY
SETUP WILL WORK. DO IT THE DAY
BEFORE IF POSSIBLE.
People who have never given formal talks
before often make one of two kinds of mistakes: they estimate their own pace
incorrectly, or they simply make far too many slides. Generally, figure that you can cover one
slide with text on it per minute.
About half of your material should be graphics or illustrations of some
sort – people get bored with endless text.
So, for a 45 minute talk, you would probably
make up something like 30 to 35 slides of actual text and an addition 10 to 15
that are mostly pictures you’ll explain during the talk. Often you can copy some of this material
right out of the online versions of papers or from the web site of the author. However, we probably won’t have a
network connection in the lecture room, so your slides do need to be self
contained.
A fast speaker who is comfortable in front of
a group and familiar with her slides could perhaps use as many as 60 slides for
a 45 minute talk. But she would
need to have relatively little text on each slide to get away with this.
Feel free to stray from the papers I’ve
suggested. But do read the papers I
suggested. It may be wise to start
reading them two weeks early, since many are tough, high-content papers with a
lot of meat to them. People
attending the class really should read them too, but probably will do so the
day before your talk and won’t have time to really pick away at the
material and think hard about it.
So your job is to take them to a deeper level of understanding than they
will have gotten in reading the papers quickly over a few beers. And their job is to have read the papers
carefully enough to contribute to a spirited discussion in class.