hama-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teof...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Hama 0.7.0
Date Mon, 18 Nov 2013 07:01:46 GMT
+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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message