Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 85C7B18661 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:45:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 74206 invoked by uid 500); 19 Aug 2015 18:45:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 74168 invoked by uid 500); 19 Aug 2015 18:45:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 74156 invoked by uid 99); 19 Aug 2015 18:45:08 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:45:08 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 9F64D182107 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:45:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.894 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.894 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net Received: from mx1-us-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nve_GkidXq60 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:44:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net [69.252.207.39]) by mx1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 8DDA9210CA for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:44:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from resomta-ch2-16v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.112]) by resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id 6ijr1r0022S2Q5R01ikp6A; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:44:49 +0000 Received: from resmail-ch2-129v.sys.comcast.net ([162.150.48.163]) by resomta-ch2-16v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id 6ikp1r0023XFKay01ikpeA; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:44:49 +0000 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:44:48 +0000 (UTC) From: dlmarion@comcast.net To: dev@accumulo.apache.org Message-ID: <1752502803.5202939.1440009888909.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: References: <55D4C9CD.80708@gmail.com> Subject: Re: HBase and Accumulo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_5202938_1066882458.1440009888908" X-Originating-IP: [::ffff:144.51.241.32] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.7_GA_6031 (ZimbraWebClient - FF38 (Linux)/8.0.7_GA_6031) Thread-Topic: HBase and Accumulo Thread-Index: B7rI0S8lQ/6AAOvmZW0CXYrV0i6Diw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1440009889; bh=HmNgv2q+3314qpSSDioY/ASQPY6CZR2+wxR/jZlWY2o=; h=Received:Received:Date:From:To:Message-ID:Subject:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=vgLc5bDhq9ytbf3MmVbjnNNa66jvIiV+Ev/Jr5TCb60IFCiCnHEj5uaIYGLNAWIyx ziOn0gtprMGu/kJ/y8Z3PF35UdjuHgriqKpwv7TTEfVynHgi7lHm8ccz81X9qai32s KfiG+Vn4+/pBERoG622UkzzOTG3WF7iOXjXz3AlVVA+2vP+fNyO7xbU61wKOb2zNuO 0upquopV3yPXo99qU+lPcVG2wNzC+iMJzDIb2R5Z4lw7mCgw4txMW07UL1x+nx6aii I9NjulEQ8P4eyd3UpELaslixJHQoc8ejfP+mTOsqHoc5NDuvH7NMupWYMurXRN8mL1 MUQo/DwdFbaAA== ------=_Part_5202938_1066882458.1440009888908 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "I am looking for real gap comparing HBase to Accumulo if there is any so that I can be prepared to address them. This is not limited to the security area. There are differences in some features and implementations. But they don't see like real 'gaps'." He asked about gaps, but not feature and implementation gaps. Seems like architecture differences would be ok to me. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Busbey" To: "dev" Cc: "dev" Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 2:40:45 PM Subject: Re: HBase and Accumulo Let's please stick to the topic Jerry asked about: security features. We can get into all sorts of discussions around scalability and read/write performance in a different joint thread if folks want. We all have lots of Opinions (and the YCSB community would love to see more of y'all show up to improve it's suitability for comparing things ;) ). However, I think we're all in agreement that both systems scale "well enough" for the vast majority of use cases. On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Ted Malaska wrote: > Sorry Type-o > > So there might be issues when you pass the Quadrillion. But Like I said > never ran into that issue of region limits. > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Ted Malaska > wrote: > > > Sorry 10 billion a day so that is 7 Trillion records. So many issues > > around 1000 Trillion > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Ted Malaska > > wrote: > > > >> I've been doing HBase for a long time and never had an issue with region > >> count limits and I have clusters with 10s of billions of records. Many > >> there would be issues around a couple Trillion records, but never got > that > >> high yet. > >> > >> Ted Malaska > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Josh Elser > wrote: > >> > >>> Oh, one other thing that I should mention (was prompted off-list). > >>> > >>> (definition time since cross-list now: HBase regions == Accumulo > tablets) > >>> > >>> Accumulo will handle many more regions than HBase does now due to a > >>> splittable metadata table. While I was told this was a very long and > >>> arduous journey to implement correctly (WRT splitting, merges and bulk > >>> loading), users with "too many regions" problems are extremely few and > far > >>> between for Accumulo. > >>> > >>> I was very happy to see effort/design being put into this in HBase. > And, > >>> just to be fair in criticism/praises, HBase does appear to me to do > >>> assignments of regions much faster than Accumulo does on a small > cluster > >>> (~5-10 nodes). Accumulo may take a few seconds to notice and reassign > >>> tablets. I have yet to notice this with HBase (which also could be due > to > >>> lack of personal testing). > >>> > >>> > >>> Jerry He wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, folks > >>>> > >>>> We have people that are evaluating HBase vs Accumulo. > >>>> Security is an important factor. > >>>> > >>>> But I think after the Cell security was added in HBase, there is no > more > >>>> real gap compared to Accumulo. > >>>> > >>>> I know we have both HBase and Accumulo experts on this list. > >>>> Could someone shred more light? > >>>> I am looking for real gap comparing HBase to Accumulo if there is any > so > >>>> that I can be prepared to address them. This is not limited to the > >>>> security > >>>> area. > >>>> > >>>> There are differences in some features and implementations. But they > >>>> don't > >>>> see like real 'gaps'. > >>>> > >>>> Any comments and feedbacks are welcome. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Jerry > >>>> > >>>> > >> > > > -- Sean ------=_Part_5202938_1066882458.1440009888908--