Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hama.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hama.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of andronat_asf@hotmail.com
 designates 65.55.111.172 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP466276C5E01A17BE4E3418E9860@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
Subject: Re: Cutting a 0.7 release
From: Anastasis Andronidis <andronat_asf@hotmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGnSx05gKmEpG4cRZvT2z0q03OEOVBG+tJmCEDs9dNq_HWJ-xw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:19:17 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <34F50B40-650C-4EDD-8E6B-1F4BB37782BC@apache.org>
 <CAGnSx07gxbruJWn8r+NY7+xcTktbzxrDE8rSJQDTaQsC7XKQnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGQgZQThBC4HxGsGkVVUmAfX42YD-NRLMku9v6ChtDty4DeYuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGnSx05gKmEpG4cRZvT2z0q03OEOVBG+tJmCEDs9dNq_HWJ-xw@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@hama.apache.org

On 24 =CE=A6=CE=B5=CE=B2 2014, at 3:32 =CE=BC.=CE=BC., Tommaso Teofili =
<tommaso.teofili@gmail.com> wrote:

>>=20
>> According to my personal evaluations, current system is fairly
>> respectable. As I mentioned before, I believe we should stick to
>> in-memory style since the today's machines can be equipped with up to
>> 128 GB. Disk (or disk hybrid) based queue is a optional, not a
>> must-have.
>>=20
>=20
> right, the only thing that I think we need to address before 0.7.0 is
> related to the OutOfMemory errors (especially when dealing with large
> graphs); for example IMHO even if the memory is not enough to store =
all the
> graph vertices assigned to a certain peer, a scalable system should =
never
> throw OOM exceptions, instead it may eventually process items slower =
(with
> caches / queues) but never throw an exception for that but that's just =
my
> opinion.
>=20

I like and agree with this.

Cheers,
Anastasis