hama-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chia-Hung Lin <cli...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Hama 0.7.0
Date Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:45:07 GMT
+1

On 18 November 2013 17:31, Anastasis Andronidis
<andronat_asf@hotmail.com> wrote:
> +1 sounds great.
> Anastasis
>
> On 18 Νοε 2013, at 9:01 π.μ., Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teofili@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> +1 sounds good to me.
>> Tommaso
>>
>>
>> 2013/11/18 Edward J. Yoon <edwardyoon@apache.org>
>>
>>>> I would like to suggest that we solve the messaging scalability issue.
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> The Spilling Queue seems works fine on my cluster. So, if we finish
>>> the below tasks, I think, Hama will be very "Competitive" in terms of
>>> the performance and scalability of the both (pure) BSP and Graph
>>> computing engine.
>>>
>>> HAMA-734 Hama Message Manager should be able to delegate the ownership
>>> of internal message queue on request for future superstep.
>>> HAMA-723 Implement sorting in Spilling queue.
>>> HAMA-816 Add the getMsgIterators method for efficient message looping.
>>> HAMA-783 Efficient InMemory Storage for Vertices.
>>>
>>> If no objection, i would like to arrange the JIRA tasks for 0.7.0,
>>> based on this. WDYT?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Chia-Hung Lin <clin4j@googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
>>> @eddieyoon
>>>
>

Mime
View raw message