asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Carey <>
Subject Re: Working with Hadoop
Date Thu, 21 Jul 2016 18:10:03 GMT
My 0.15 cents' worth:

1 is of definite interest as a way of sneakily expanding our turf - 
AsterixDB is in the "NoSQL on steroids" space, in terms of our features 
and functionality - but can properly encroach on the "SQL on Hadoop" 
analytics world with 1.  That's something that's of interest, I think.  
For now I think supporting one popular version of Hadoop is good - so 
2.x.x is a fine answer for that.

2 was an NSF deliverable and we felt it would be helpful w.r.t. the 
world of 1 - i.e., maybe folks would be more comfortable running us in 
their data centers if their YARN sysadmins could be the resource/etc 
managers.  I think that's also still of interest, and both 1 and 2 are 
things we should maintain.

3 is for an interesting/fun research question - namely, would AsterixDB 
on HDFS storage be better from a replication, etc., standpoint than 
AsterixDB doing everything natively and using DB-style replication.  The 
goal of 3 is to explore that question but not to make HDFS-ified 
AsterixDB a released/supported feature in AsterixDB in any particular 
timeframe.  At the time we started looking at 3, we were also thinking 
it might (albeit misguidedly :-)) make potential "enterprise adopters" 
of AsterixDB happier to "know that their data is safely kept in HDFS".  
(Nevermind that we could corrupt the details of their data and make it 
unusable still. :-))  I think that's no longer something we need to 
worry about as a reason for 3 - the real reason for 3 is experimental 
systems research (i.e., the native vs. HDFS performance issues study).



On 7/21/16 1:49 AM, abdullah alamoudi wrote:
> I think that list is all we've got. We only support Hadoop 2.x.x.
> We found that supporting both 1.x and 2.x has a cost that we couldn't
> afford. I believe there are fundamental differences between Hadoop 1.x and
> 2.x and that a good segment of Hadoop community still use 1.x. However, it
> has been a while since 1.x got a new release and so, I am not sure if it is
> worth investing time in making it work.
> Also, seems to me that our Hadoop support is mainly for attracting existing
> users of Hadoop and so, I really think we should not invest in that area
> anymore. The only thing that I think we should continue doing is maybe add
> more tests (for different formats,etc). That is just my opinion :)
> What happened to Hadoop Compatibility Layer? Is that still a thing?
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Ian Maxon <> wrote:
>> That's all the ways we use Hadoop at the moment that I can think of as
>> well. Maybe the two other minor ones are zookeeper and HDFS backup in
>> Managix.
>> For 1) and 2) it's using Hadoop 2.2.0 right now. In my experimental branch
>> for 3) I'm using 2.6.0, it doesn't cause any more issues for me than 2.2.0.
>> I believe 1) used to support Hadoop 0.20.0 and other 1.x versions but I'm
>> not sure if that works anymore.
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Till Westmann <> wrote:
>>> Hi everybody,
>>> recently the topic of Hadoop support came up and I realized that my
>>> understanding is quite spotty so I’m trying to understand where we are.
>>> AFAIK we support
>>> 1) HDFS for (potentially indexed) external datasets,
>>> 2) YARN as a resource manager, and
>>> 3) HDFS as a basis for internal storage.
>>> Is this list complete or do we have other Hadoop touchpoints?
>>> I believe that 1) and 2) should be reasonable stable and that 3) is still
>>> in
>>> the works. Is that correct?
>>> Further I'm wondering
>>> a) which versions of Hadoop we support and
>>> b) which ones we should support for all the cases.
>>> Please chime in on this as well.
>>> Any other things that anybody working with AsterixDB and Hadoop should be
>>> aware
>>> of?
>>> Thanks!
>>> Till

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message