COMP 620: Graduate Seminar in Distributed Computing

Description

Tentative List of Papers

• Networking

• 1. Congestion Control for High Bandwidth-Delay Product Networks ( SIGCOMM 2002)
• 2. Routing in a Delay Tolerant Network (SIGCOMM 2004)
• 3. High Speed Policy Based Packet Forwarding using Efficient Multidimensional Range Matching (SIGCOMM 98)
• 4. Range-Free Localization Schemes for Large Scale Sensor (MOBICOM 2003)
• 5. Routing in Multi-Radio Multi-Hop Wireless Mesh Networks ( MOBICOM 2004)

• Operating Systems

• 1. Exokernel: an operating system architecture for application-level resource management ( SOSP 95)
• 2. Xen and the Art of Virtualization ( SOSP 2003)
• 3. Unmodified Device Driver Reuse and Improved System Dependability via Virtual Machines (OSDI 2004)
• 4. Contract Based Load Management in Federated Distributed systems ( NSDI 2004)
• 5. Increasing Web Server Throughput with Network Interface Data Caching ( ASPLOS 2002)
• 6. Using Magpie for Request Extraction and Workload Modelling ( OSDI 2004)

• File and Storage Technologies

• 1. Journaling vs Soft Updates : Asynchronous Meta-data Protection in File Systems ( USENIX 2000)
• 2. Track Aligned Extents : Matching Access Patterns to Disk Driver Characteristics - ( FAST 2002 )
• 3. DSPTF: Decentralized Request Distribution in Brickbased Storage Systems ( ASPLOS 2004)
• 4. Improving Storage System Availability with D-GRAID ( FAST 2004)
• 5. Using MEMS Based Storage in Disk Arrays ( FAST 2003)

• The team should present the work and make a compelling case why the contribution is significant. This will include the context of the contribution, prior work, and in cases where papers are previously published, how the work has influenced the research community or industry's directions (impact). If the paper is very recent, the defense should present arguments for the potential impact. Coming up with potential future work can show how the paper opens doors to new research.
• The presentation should go well beyond a paper "summary". The defense should not critique the work other than to try to pre-empt attacks from the offense (e.g., by explicitly limiting the scope of the contribution).
• The defense should also try to look up related work to support their case (CiteSeer is a good place to start looking).
  

• This team should critique the work, and make a case for missing links, unaddressed issues, lack of impact, inappropriateness of the problem formulation, etc.
• The more insightful and less obvious the criticisms the better.
• While the offense should prepare remarks in advance, they should also react to the points made by the defense.
• The offense should also try to look up related work to support their case (CiteSeer is a good place to start looking).
  

• The presentations should be written in Powerpoint format (for better or worse) and will be posted on the seminar web page after each class.