Paper detail

An Alternate Construction of an Access-Optimal Regenerating Code with Optimal Sub-Packetization Level

Given the scale of today's distributed storage systems, the failure of an individual node is a common phenomenon. Various metrics have been proposed to measure the efficacy of the repair of a failed node, such as the amount of data download needed to repair (also known as the repair bandwidth), the amount of data accessed at the helper nodes, and the number of helper nodes contacted. Clearly, the amount of data accessed can never be smaller than the repair bandwidth. In the case of a help-by-transfer code, the amount of data accessed is equal to the repair bandwidth. It follows that a help-by-transfer code possessing optimal repair bandwidth is access optimal. The focus of the present paper is on help-by-transfer codes that employ minimum possible bandwidth to repair the systematic nodes and are thus access optimal for the repair of a systematic node. The zigzag construction by Tamo et al. in which both systematic and parity nodes are repaired is access optimal. But the sub-packetization level required is $r^k$ where $r$ is the number of parities and $k$ is the number of systematic nodes. To date, the best known achievable sub-packetization level for access-optimal codes is $r^{k/r}$ in a MISER-code-based construction by Cadambe et al. in which only the systematic nodes are repaired and where the location of symbols transmitted by a helper node depends only on the failed node and is the same for all helper nodes. Under this set-up, it turns out that this sub-packetization level cannot be improved upon. In the present paper, we present an alternate construction under the same setup, of an access-optimal code repairing systematic nodes, that is inspired by the zigzag code construction and that also achieves a sub-packetization level of $r^{k/r}$.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.