hama-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Suraj Menon <menonsur...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Hama 0.5 roadmap
Date Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:15:15 GMT
+1 on HAMA 511 should not be blocker.

Also, I lost the wiki link that explains the fault tolerant design. It
would be helpful to undestand the recovery design. I believe that we will
have the recovery BSP tasks scheduled to start running(in high probability)
on node with data where the checkpointed messages are written on HDFS with
a single input split?
I also would like to know why we rejected the idea of speculative task
I am currently working on HAMA-445 and HAMA-498. Thanks to Chiahung, I have
2-3 good papers to read already :).

How serious is the feature of real-time processing for Hama? I am told that
some are already using it for the purpose and read Thomas's blog on the
same. Are we deferring it until we have a design for offline processing or
should we keep it in mind for fault tolerance?


On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Chia-Hung Lin <clin4j@googlemail.com>wrote:

> There are many tasks required to work on and to be integrated in order
> to get (GroomServer) fault tolerance ready. Tasks include:
> - GroomServer status/ resource monitor
> - Failure Detection
> - Checkpointed data integration
> - Refactoring bsp() (if necessary)
> - Master decision making
> Currently I am working on the first one, and with a patch for 2nd on
> jira already. In my viewpoint, it might be difficult to get those
> tasks done within 2-3 months.
> On 13 February 2012 17:05, Edward J. Yoon <edwardyoon@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think, it's time to discuss about our 0.5 roadmap more clearly.
> >
> > IMO, I'd like to release Hama 0.5 with only fault tolerant processing,
> > clearly defined BSP and Pregel interfaces. Maybe 2~3 months later?
> > And, HAMA-511 should not be a blocker for 0.5 release, it should be
> > considered as a long term task I think.
> >
> > There's a lot of new M/R alternatives but no stable alternatives and
> > no dominant player at the moment. We have to stabilize ourselves first
> > rather than finding ways to differentiate ourselves from the
> > competition or considering new paradigms.
> >
> > Please feel free to leave your opinion!
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
> > @eddieyoon

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