hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Rawson <ryano...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ZK rethink?
Date Sun, 12 Apr 2009 05:21:09 GMT
Yes quantcast is sponsoring (ie: hired him) to work on kfs.  Given hdfs's
disinterest in supporting features that are essential to hbase, we need to
do the right thing and recommend a solution that scales at the small end
(wouldn't it be nice not to mess with "xceiver" [sic] settings?) And the big
end, and to close the write hole?

Obviously kfs isn't for everyone, but we could recommend it to newbies and
potentially put and end to the parade of "I can't run on 3 nodes" newbie

On Apr 11, 2009 9:54 PM, "Andrew Purtell" <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

I have heard that Quantcast is running a 700 node KFS
cluster and is sponsoring Sriram Rao as a full time
employee now.

I'm also looking at GlusterFS. GlusterFS is interesting
in that it is completely decentralized. The clients
determine how the data is stored on the network. I'm
investigating how one might distribute configs (and
updates, when bricks are added or decommissioned) in
ZK. I have a small cluster up and running and it works
well enough to support Hadoop/mapreduce and HBase on
top of it. Performance and reliability seem better
than HDFS, but this is not quantified yet.

- Andy > From: Ryan Rawson > Subject: Re: ZK rethink?
> Date: Saturday, April 11, 2009, 7:50 PM

> > Hdfs causes us so many scalability and data loss issues. > I'm
personally looking into kfs? As i...

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