FAST Writing Style
Use this when revising the main paper. FAST papers are read by storage systems people, so they need
a storage contribution stated on the first page and an evaluation a storage reviewer trusts. The
failure this skill prevents is a technically fine paper that reads like a general systems demo or a
throughput-bar benchmark with "storage" in the title.
Revision rules
- Lead with the storage contribution: the storage problem a practitioner recognizes, the
storage cost current designs pay (write amplification, tail latency, endurance, space, or a
consistency gap), your design or finding, real-device evidence, and what changes for storage
systems.
- Frame the evaluation as a cost you change, not a speed you win. State up front which storage
quantity the paper moves; a reader should know by the end of the intro whether the headline is
bytes-written, p99 latency, drive lifetime, or recovery correctness.
- Pair every claim with proportional, real-device evidence — named drives and firmware, standard
workloads/traces, a distribution not just a mean, a device counter not an estimate — not
adjectives.
- Make the device reality visible early. A storage reviewer wants to know the hardware and its
state; a testbed table and a sentence on preconditioning/aging belong near the evaluation's start,
not buried.
- Protect the invariant. If the design defers, batches, or reorders writes, say early that you
verify crash consistency/durability still holds; do not let the reader wonder.
- Respect the USENIX page budget (FAST '27: ≤12 pages long / ≤6 short, references excluded) as a
design constraint. It is a firm two-column limit; recover space editorially, never by shrinking
the evaluation or the durability discussion.
- Maintain double-blind in self-citations (third person), system/tool names, acknowledgements,
funding, datacenter names, and trace-hosting URLs.
Storage paper skeleton
| Section |
Job it must do |
Common failure |
| Intro |
Storage problem, the cost paid, contribution, evidence preview, storage payoff — first page |
Leads with a technology trend, not a storage cost |
| Background |
The device/media/workload reality the design exploits |
Generic background not tied to the mechanism |
| Design / Study |
The mechanism or the study protocol, reproducibly |
Design described too thinly to rebuild |
| Evaluation |
Each claim answered with the right storage metric on real devices |
Throughput bar standing in for the claimed cost |
| Consistency/durability |
The invariant the change risks, tested |
Consistency asserted, never crash-tested |
| Related work |
Delta-first positioning against storage literature |
Citation catalog with no contrast |
Sentence-level rewrites
| Draft pattern |
FAST-safe rewrite |
| "Our system is much faster." |
"cuts write amplification from X to Y on <SSD model, firmware> at steady state" |
| "We evaluate on an SSD." |
"on <model/capacity/firmware>, preconditioned to steady state, fill Z%, TRIM on" |
| "Low latency." |
"p99.9 read latency of ... under ; full distribution in Fig. N" |
| "It is reliable / consistent." |
"recovers a consistent state at all injected crash points (§6)" |
| "State-of-the-art throughput." |
Claim scoped to the devices, workloads, and state actually tested |
| "We reduce writes by ~2x." |
"bytes-written from device counters fell 2.1x (95% CI ...), vs. the tuned baseline" |
Storage-metric discipline
[Endurance] report bytes-written / P/E cycles from device counters, not estimates
[Latency] report the distribution (p50/p99/p99.9) under load, not the mean
[Amplification] separate read vs. write amplification; say how each is measured
[Space] on-media footprint, including metadata/GC overhead
[Durability] the crash-consistency invariant and the test that checks it
-> lead each result with the metric that matches the claim; put device+state beside it
Vignette: compressing a design-plus-study paper
A draft with a new cache design, six microbenchmarks, and a sprawling background: keep the design,
the two experiments that carry the headline (miss-ratio-vs-cost and tail latency on real traces),
and a crash-consistency check; move secondary microbenchmarks and full parameter sweeps to the
artifact with forward references; cut background to the media/workload facts the mechanism needs.
The test of a good cut: a reviewer should be able to answer "what storage cost does this change, by
how much, on what hardware, and does it stay correct?" from the body alone.
Output format
[Writing diagnosis] clear / under-motivated / wrong-metric / device-reality-missing / over-scoped
[First-page fix] <new framing leading with the storage cost the paper changes>
[Metric audit] <claim -> storage metric -> measured on real devices? yes/no>
[Durability check placement] <where the crash-consistency/invariant test is stated>
[Anonymity edits] <system names / self-citations / trace URLs / datacenter names to rewrite>
1---2name: fast-writing-style3description: Use when revising a USENIX FAST paper for a storage contribution on the first page, a design/mechanism narrative a storage reviewer can follow, an evaluation framed as the storage cost it changes (write amplification, tail latency, endurance, crash consistency), double-blind wording, and disciplined use of the USENIX two-column page budget.4---56# FAST Writing Style78Use this when revising the main paper. FAST papers are read by storage systems people, so they need9a **storage contribution stated on the first page** and an evaluation a storage reviewer trusts. The10failure this skill prevents is a technically fine paper that reads like a general systems demo or a11throughput-bar benchmark with "storage" in the title.1213## Revision rules1415- **Lead with the storage contribution:** the storage problem a practitioner recognizes, the16 *storage cost* current designs pay (write amplification, tail latency, endurance, space, or a17 consistency gap), your design or finding, real-device evidence, and what changes for storage18 systems.19- **Frame the evaluation as a cost you change, not a speed you win.** State up front which storage20 quantity the paper moves; a reader should know by the end of the intro whether the headline is21 bytes-written, p99 latency, drive lifetime, or recovery correctness.22- **Pair every claim with proportional, real-device evidence** — named drives and firmware, standard23 workloads/traces, a distribution not just a mean, a device counter not an estimate — not24 adjectives.25- **Make the device reality visible early.** A storage reviewer wants to know the hardware and its26 state; a testbed table and a sentence on preconditioning/aging belong near the evaluation's start,27 not buried.28- **Protect the invariant.** If the design defers, batches, or reorders writes, say early that you29 verify crash consistency/durability still holds; do not let the reader wonder.30- **Respect the USENIX page budget** (FAST '27: ≤12 pages long / ≤6 short, references excluded) as a31 design constraint. It is a firm two-column limit; recover space editorially, never by shrinking32 the evaluation or the durability discussion.33- **Maintain double-blind** in self-citations (third person), system/tool names, acknowledgements,34 funding, datacenter names, and trace-hosting URLs.3536## Storage paper skeleton3738| Section | Job it must do | Common failure |39|---|---|---|40| Intro | Storage problem, the cost paid, contribution, evidence preview, storage payoff — first page | Leads with a technology trend, not a storage cost |41| Background | The device/media/workload reality the design exploits | Generic background not tied to the mechanism |42| Design / Study | The mechanism or the study protocol, reproducibly | Design described too thinly to rebuild |43| Evaluation | Each claim answered with the right storage metric on real devices | Throughput bar standing in for the claimed cost |44| Consistency/durability | The invariant the change risks, tested | Consistency asserted, never crash-tested |45| Related work | Delta-first positioning against storage literature | Citation catalog with no contrast |4647## Sentence-level rewrites4849| Draft pattern | FAST-safe rewrite |50|---|---|51| "Our system is much faster." | "cuts write amplification from X to Y on <SSD model, firmware> at steady state" |52| "We evaluate on an SSD." | "on <model/capacity/firmware>, preconditioned to steady state, fill Z%, TRIM on" |53| "Low latency." | "p99.9 read latency of ... under <workload>; full distribution in Fig. N" |54| "It is reliable / consistent." | "recovers a consistent state at all <K> injected crash points (§6)" |55| "State-of-the-art throughput." | Claim scoped to the devices, workloads, and state actually tested |56| "We reduce writes by ~2x." | "bytes-written from device counters fell 2.1x (95% CI ...), vs. the tuned baseline" |5758## Storage-metric discipline5960```text61[Endurance] report bytes-written / P/E cycles from device counters, not estimates62[Latency] report the distribution (p50/p99/p99.9) under load, not the mean63[Amplification] separate read vs. write amplification; say how each is measured64[Space] on-media footprint, including metadata/GC overhead65[Durability] the crash-consistency invariant and the test that checks it66-> lead each result with the metric that matches the claim; put device+state beside it67```6869## Vignette: compressing a design-plus-study paper7071A draft with a new cache design, six microbenchmarks, and a sprawling background: keep the design,72the two experiments that carry the headline (miss-ratio-vs-cost and tail latency on real traces),73and a crash-consistency check; move secondary microbenchmarks and full parameter sweeps to the74artifact with forward references; cut background to the media/workload facts the mechanism needs.75The test of a good cut: a reviewer should be able to answer "what storage cost does this change, by76how much, on what hardware, and does it stay correct?" from the body alone.7778## Output format7980```text81[Writing diagnosis] clear / under-motivated / wrong-metric / device-reality-missing / over-scoped82[First-page fix] <new framing leading with the storage cost the paper changes>83[Metric audit] <claim -> storage metric -> measured on real devices? yes/no>84[Durability check placement] <where the crash-consistency/invariant test is stated>85[Anonymity edits] <system names / self-citations / trace URLs / datacenter names to rewrite>86```
brycewang-stanford