fast-related-work

FAST Related Work

Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. FAST reviewers are close to the storage literature and expect to see where your paper sits relative to the nearest prior work — stated as a delta, not a list. Because many landmark storage systems appeared at OSDI, ATC, SOSP, or EuroSys rather than FAST, covering the right lanes matters. Reopen the current call for concurrent-submission, anonymity, and prior-publication rules before advising.

Positioning checks

• Separate the storage novelty from the engineering effort. What is new: a design that exploits a media property, a mechanism that removes a storage cost, a measurement method, a reliability finding, or an evidence regime nobody had covered on real devices?
• Cover the storage lanes. FAST reviewers expect the storage venues and the storage-relevant systems venues, not just the papers nearest your method (see the table). A bibliography missing the obvious OSDI/ATC/SOSP predecessor reads as unaware.
• Write delta-first. Each closely related system gets one sentence naming what it did and one naming what you do differently — often the delta is a storage quantity (it cut reads but paid write amplification; it worked in simulation but not on real flash). Position, don't catalog.
• Preserve double-blind. Cite your own prior work in the third person and never link reviewers to an identity-revealing preprint, repository, homepage, or trace host.
• Declare overlap with any prior workshop (e.g. HotStorage) version or concurrent submission; do not re-submit archival work as new.

Storage literature lanes

A bibliography that cites only your own subarea tells a reviewer the delta may be smaller than claimed; one that reaches the systems flagships and the storage journals signals command of the field.

Delta-first positioning vignette

Suppose the paper proposes an endurance-aware LSM compaction scheduler. Its nearest neighbors: the key/value-separation FAST design (cut amplification via layout, not scheduling), an OSDI LSM system (tuned for reads, write cost unaddressed), and a HotStorage note proposing endurance-aware ideas without an implementation. The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — scheduling where one changed layout, endurance-optimization where another optimized reads, and a real-device evaluation where the workshop note had none.

Concurrent and prior-version judgment calls

[Concurrent arXiv work]   cite neutrally, state the technical/storage-metric difference, avoid
                          unverifiable priority claims; keep the citation double-blind
[Your HotStorage version] workshop notes are usually non-archival and citable, but confirm against
                          the current CFP wording and phrase so anonymity survives
[Prior short/poster]      declare the overlap and state what the full paper adds beyond it
[Archival status unclear] declare the overlap in the submission form rather than guessing

Eligibility red flags

• Substantial text overlap with a published paper by the same authors (self-plagiarism risk).
• A "new" study that re-reports a prior dataset's numbers without a new storage question.
• Citations exclusively to non-storage venues, signaling the paper may be a systems/architecture/DB paper rerouted without reframing its storage core.

Output format

[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky
[Lanes covered] <storage flagship / systems venues / workshops / journals / adjacent>
[Nearest 3 works] <work -> one-line storage-metric delta>
[Archival-overlap risk] <none / declare: what>
[Novelty sentence] <FAST-ready contribution contrast against the nearest prior storage work>