Mailing-List: contact hama-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: hama-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of thomas.jungblut@googlemail.com
 designates 209.85.212.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGQgZQSfnC2sN2iTLA6+JWgeh8hS+hv_2YuHwTwhAw5ZmH7nUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAGQgZQTJwwx4_=jwq7-mPJFRUPredLhKWWeZSmh_dWXAc7c+Mw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ-=yskgAnNTP1h5LsmcWKiLf7y42AQF0dofe9nfsH9KO7BQwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGQgZQSfnC2sN2iTLA6+JWgeh8hS+hv_2YuHwTwhAw5ZmH7nUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:33:23 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAJ-=ysnj2TFVpVZ8GD27NYGt556kskhfOs=SP5Zz+K_GZgSJnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: About HAMA-410
From: Thomas Jungblut <thomas.jungblut@googlemail.com>
To: hama-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3071cd0c75af2604a7817761

--20cf3071cd0c75af2604a7817761
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Yes, that is already implemented in the latest patch.
That is quite okay, I would be +1 to let each task be a BSPPeer. Or
actually, has a BSPPeer, maybe we are going to add some kind of JVM reuse,
then we just have to set a new BSPPeer instead of swapping the whole task.

Overall I thought of this cascading design:

>BSPMaster
->Groom1
-->Task1
-->Task2
->Groom2
-->Task3

So each task can directly communicate with other tasks using RPC. (Altough
I'm not a great friend of this RPC stuff [1])
Grooms are only there to communicate with each task, for pinging tasks to be
alive. And the BSPMaster is responsible to keep track of the availability of
the grooms.

We should take care of syncs and use them as sparse as possible, since they
tend to be a large bottleneck.
What about the barrier sync of zookeeper? Does he can deal with these
multiple tasks? Would each task be a znode?

[1]:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAMA-358?focusedCommentId=13059229&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13059229

2011/7/7 Edward J. Yoon <edwardyoon@apache.org>:
> Invoked (child) process will become a BSPPeer.
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Thomas Jungblut
> <thomas.jungblut@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Just for clarification:
>> What is your plan now?
>> To setup a BSPPeer for several tasks on a server (groom) or is the
>> groom now the one and only BSPPeer?
>>
>> 2011/7/7 Edward J. Yoon <edwardyoon@apache.org>:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> To support multi-tasks, I'm thinking about merging BSPPeer and Task.
>>> Then, communication will be occurred among Tasks directly. I think,
>>> there's no need to manage BSPPeers inside GroomServer.
>>>
>>> Can we think about the latent side-effects from this decision, together?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
>>> @eddieyoon
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Jungblut
>> Berlin
>>
>> mobile: 0170-3081070
>>
>> business: thomas.jungblut@testberichte.de
>> private: thomas.jungblut@gmail.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
> @eddieyoon
>


-- 
Thomas Jungblut
Berlin

mobile: 0170-3081070

business: thomas.jungblut@testberichte.de
private: thomas.jungblut@gmail.com

--20cf3071cd0c75af2604a7817761--