aiqbench analysis
LayoutBench addresses a critical infrastructure gap by systematically evaluating storage layouts specifically for multimedia machine learning workloads, moving beyond traditional database-centric benchmarks. The study reveals significant trade-offs between latency, data transfer volume, and monetary cost across different AWS configurations, providing actionable insights for optimizing cloud object storage strategies in AI pipelines. This research directly impacts the efficiency of training large-scale models where retrieval speed and egress costs are primary constraints.
LayoutBench: Performance Benchmarking of Cloud Storage Layouts for Multimedia Data
arXiv:2607.28880v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern multimedia machine learning workloads increasingly store large-scale datasets in cloud object storage services such as AWS S3. How these samples are physically organized in storage (i.e.,storage layout) directly affects how quickly and cheaply they can be retrieved. Yet the benchmarks used to guide storage decisions today focus on database engines and query processing, and none systematically evaluates how different storage layouts perform for multimedia data retrieval. We present LayoutBench, the first benchmark designed to fill this gap. It evaluates three representative layout strategies: storing each sample as an individual object (L1), sequentially packing samples into tar archives (L2), and organizing samples as columns in Parquet files (L3). We measure retrieval time, data transferred, and monetary cost using 11 queries of varying result-set sizes on ImageNet across six AWS EC2 instance configurations that span different network bandwidth and memory tiers. Our experiments reveal that L2 achieves lower latency than L1 and L3 through connection reuse, but loses this advantage as retrieval sizes become very large. L3 is the fastest for very large retrievals but transfers substantially more data across all query sizes due to row-group granularity, and requires significantly more memory. Across all layouts, data transfer cost dominates total expenditure, with L3 costing an order of magnitude more than L1 or L2.
Abstract:Modern multimedia machine learning workloads increasingly store large-scale datasets in cloud object storage services such as AWS S3. How these samples are physically organized in storage (i.e.,storage layout) directly affects how quickly and cheaply they can be retrieved. Yet the benchmarks used to guide storage decisions today focus on database engines and query processing, and none systematically evaluates how different storage layouts perform for multimedia data retrieval. We present LayoutBench, the first benchmark designed to fill this gap. It evaluates three representative layout strategies: storing each sample as an individual object (L1), sequentially packing samples into tar archives (L2), and organizing samples as columns in Parquet files (L3). We measure retrieval time, data transferred, and monetary cost using 11 queries of varying result-set sizes on ImageNet across six AWS EC2 instance configurations that span different network bandwidth and memory tiers. Our experiments reveal that L2 achieves lower latency than L1 and L3 through connection reuse, but loses this advantage as retrieval sizes become very large. L3 is the fastest for very large retrievals but transfers substantially more data across all query sizes due to row-group granularity, and requires significantly more memory. Across all layouts, data transfer cost dominates total expenditure, with L3 costing an order of magnitude more than L1 or L2.
Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing (cs.DC); Databases (cs.DB); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2607.28880 [cs.DC]
(or arXiv:2607.28880v1 [cs.DC] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.28880 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
https://doi.org/10.1145/3805621.3807610 Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 324 words
Related coverage

Transactional Vs Analytical Database: Choosing OLTP, OLAP, or Hybrid
Databricks · Aug 24, 2026

Article: When Should You Use Liquid Clustering? Benchmarking Lakehouse Layout Strategies
InfoQ · Oct 12, 2026

OLTP vs. OLAP: Choosing Between Transactional and Analytical Databases
Databricks · Oct 13, 2026

News
Quantum Computing Report · Jul 25, 2026