giraph-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Claudio Martella <claudio.marte...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Giraph vs good-old PVM/MPI ?
Date Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:20:07 GMT
In principle you could implement (and it has been) Pregel through MPI. The
idea behind Pregel was precisely to factor out typical patterns of graph
processing that used to be based on message-passing and barriers. A
framework like Pregel/Giraph hides this complexity through a well-defined
API and programming pattern, leaving the user with only the application
logics. How the rest is implemented under the hood, is another story that
the user does not have to worry about.


On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Yang <teddyyyy123@gmail.com> 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
>



-- 
   Claudio Martella
   claudio.martella@gmail.com

Mime
View raw message