Paper detail

When and By How Much Can Helper Node Selection Improve Regenerating Codes?

Regenerating codes (RCs) can significantly reduce the repair-bandwidth of distributed storage networks. Initially, the analysis of RCs was based on the assumption that during the repair process, the newcomer does not distinguish (among all surviving nodes) which nodes to access, i.e., the newcomer is oblivious to the set of helpers being used. Such a scheme is termed the blind repair (BR) scheme. Nonetheless, it is intuitive in practice that the newcomer should choose to access only those "good" helpers. In this paper, a new characterization of the effect of choosing the helper nodes in terms of the storage-bandwidth tradeoff is given. Specifically, answers to the following fundamental questions are given: Under what conditions does proactively choosing the helper nodes improve the storage-bandwidth tradeoff? Can this improvement be analytically quantified? This paper answers the former question by providing a necessary and sufficient condition under which optimally choosing good helpers strictly improves the storage-bandwidth tradeoff. To answer the latter question, a low-complexity helper selection solution, termed the family repair (FR) scheme, is proposed and the corresponding storage/repair-bandwidth curve is characterized. For example, consider a distributed storage network with 60 total number of nodes and the network is resilient against 50 node failures. If the number of helper nodes is 10, then the FR scheme and its variant demonstrate 27% reduction in the repair-bandwidth when compared to the BR solution. This paper also proves that under some design parameters, the FR scheme is indeed optimal among all helper selection schemes. An explicit construction of an exact-repair code is also proposed that can achieve the minimum-bandwidth-regenerating point of the FR scheme. The new exact-repair code can be viewed as a generalization of the existing fractional repetition code.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.