giraph-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Avery Ching <ach...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Giraph vs good-old PVM/MPI ?
Date Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:48:41 GMT
The Giraph/Pregel model is based on bulk synchronous parallel computing, 
where the programmer is abstracted from the details of how the 
parallelization occurs (infrastructure does this for you).  Additionally 
the APIs are built for graph-processing.  Since the computing model is 
well defined (BSP), the infrastructure can checkpoint the state of the 
application at the appropriate time and also handle failures without 
user interaction.

MPI is a much lower level and generic API, where messages are send to 
processes.  Users must pack/unpack their own messages and deliver 
messages to the appropriate data structures.  Users must partition their 
own data.  As of MPI 2, the state of a failed process leaves the 
application in an undefined state (usually dead).

Hope that helps,

Avery

On 8/6/13 10:19 AM, Yang wrote:
> it seems that the paradigm offered by Giraph/Pregel is very similar to 
> the programming paradim of PVM , and to a lesser degree, MPI. using 
> PVM, we often engages in such "iterative cycles" where all the nodes 
> sync on a barrier and then enters the next cycle.
>
> so what is the extra features offered by Giraph/Pregel? I can see 
> persistence/restarting of tasks, and maybe abstraction of the 
> user-code-specific part into the API so that users are not concerned 
> with the actual message passing (message passing is done by the 
> framework).
>
> Thanks
> Yang


Mime
View raw message