giraph-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yang <>
Subject Re: Giraph vs good-old PVM/MPI ?
Date Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:55:24 GMT
thanks !

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Avery Ching <> wrote:

> 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

View raw message