The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A study of practical deduplication
Abstract
We collected file system content data from 857 desktop computers at Microsoft over a span of 4 weeks. We analyzed the data to determine the relative efficacy of data deduplication, particularly considering whole-file versus block-level elimination of redundancy. We found that whole-file deduplication achieves about three quarters of the space savings of the most aggressive block-level deduplication for storage of live file systems, and 87% of the savings for backup images. We also studied file fragmentation, finding that it is not prevalent, and updated prior file system metadata studies, finding that the distribution of file sizes continues to skew toward very large unstructured files.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Secure Deduplication with Efficient and Reliable Convergent Key Management
Li, J., Chen, X., Li, M., Li, J., Lee, P. P. C., & Lou, W. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · doi:10.1109/tpds.2013.284 · Cited by 549
Investigating the Adoption of Hybrid Encrypted Cloud Data Deduplication With Game Theory
Liang, X., Yan, Z., Deng, R. H., & Zheng, Q. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · doi:10.1109/tpds.2020.3028685 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Meyer, D. T., & Bolosky, W. J.
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Storage
- Published
- 2012-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1-20
- ISSN
- 1553-3077 (ISSN-L)
- 1553-3093
- OpenAlex
- W2110322986
- Cited by
- 476
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 50.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A study of practical deduplication. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/2078861.2078864
- The paper
- Meyer, D. T., & Bolosky, W. J. (2012). A study of practical deduplication. ACM Transactions on Storage. https://doi.org/10.1145/2078861.2078864
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
