Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hama.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hama.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of clin4j@googlemail.com
 designates 209.85.160.46 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGQgZQSXUFUWJ06XK9FKKY6_nemPkAY-nFms1UcQF10re=9grg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAGQgZQSKfU3T=2tcnrvnA1eErJHWf5kzbAHHkm3tzRUVoEp5Qg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGnSx07+k14W3kq91qG4nft46r4DLobHfqB-M46_VSjOwEsBOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+jdVcxmtDU4k52JQwbtkTGOiTLZHrex72ZJGvrHPxxcoCpOYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGQgZQSXUFUWJ06XK9FKKY6_nemPkAY-nFms1UcQF10re=9grg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:11:42 +0800
Message-ID: 
 <CA+jdVcwZbteggoT+ODjyp7M_aDRNa5sSZW7OWPgOvwz830gKzA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hama 0.7.0
From: Chia-Hung Lin <clin4j@googlemail.com>
To: dev@hama.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

That looks fine to me. In addition to this, if that task is
accomplished, are we planning to release a new version (e.g. a minor
version plus 1)? Just to check as it seems that we have demands on
frequent releases so that users who need some specific patches can use
it earlier.


On 3 September 2013 09:45, Edward J. Yoon <edwardyoon@apache.org> wrote:
> According to Suraj's dependency diagram, asynchronous messaging is
> most important and highest priority for us at the moment. How about we
> focus on this one? (Of course, some committers can dedicated on doing
> GPU, ML algorithms, or Interface Refactoring issues, regardless of
> *core* roadmap).
>
> If we agree with this plan, I think we can separate the async
> messaging into smaller sub-tasks:
>
> * Decision of whether we will use existing open source, or not.
> * Design the asynchronous messaging interface (maybe (spilling)
> message queue also should be considered together?).
> * Implementation of asynchronous messaging functions, such as send or flush.
> * Evaluation and adopt asynchronous messaging as a default messenger system.
>
> WDYT?
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Chia-Hung Lin <clin4j@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> BTW, are we going to prioritize tasks in roadmap?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 August 2013 14:17, Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teofili@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> sure, it looks reasonable to me.
>>> Tommaso
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/8/28 Edward J. Yoon <edwardyoon@apache.org>
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> After we release the 0.6.3 (HDFS 2.0 version), we have to work for 0.7.0
>>>> version now.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to suggest that we solve the messaging scalability issue.
>>>> WDYT?
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> And, according to my experiments, BSP framework shows very nice performance
>>>> (I tested also GraphLab and Spark). Only Graph job is slow. So, I'll mainly
>>>> work on improving the performance of GraphJobRunner.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
>>>> @eddieyoon
>>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
> @eddieyoon