ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From RJ Nowling <rnowl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Ceph w/ Ignite
Date Tue, 14 Jul 2015 04:23:33 GMT
Thanks, Cos!

> from Ignite standpoint replacing one with another doesn't give much
advantage

Agreed.  From the standpoint of Ignite, Hadoop, or Spark, Gluster works no
differently than HDFS.  If Ignite doesn't have an object store available
already, then Ceph could add that capability.

>From the standpoint of the user and integration with a larger IT
infrastructure, Gluster offers advantages over HDFS.  As you say, Gluster
is a POSIX-compatible native filesystem -- it provides a FUSE module for
mounting remote Gluster volumes.  This means non-Hadoop applications can
store data in the same file system as Hadoop.

I come from a scientific computing background where pretty much every
simulation or analysis tool expected access to a POSIX file system.  We
evaluated Hadoop at one point but chose not to use it because we would have
to copy all of our data into HDFS.  Gluster is a much better POSIX
distributed file system than what my university's cluster used, and I wish
I had known about it while doing my Ph.D.  :)

For my work at Red Hat, we run Spark on Gluster.  We don't use any special
plugins -- since Spark uses the Hadoop file system libraries, Spark can
read off native file systems.  Same advantages mentioned above -- nice to
be able to use grep, cat, etc. alongside Spark :)


On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 07:00PM, RJ Nowling wrote:
> > Cos,
> >
> > Can you expand on what you mean by "native to Linux" for Ceph?
>
> I meant that the file system is presented in a Linux distro as kernel
> module.
> HDFS, as you know, is an alien Java process that creates a layer
> indirection
> on top of say ext4 or jfs to provide a distributed storage; Ceph does this
> similarly to other _native_ file systems.
>
> > And can you elaborate on why Gluster doesn't make sense as a HDFS
> > replacement to you?
>
> What I wanted to express, perhaps a bit clumsy, is that HDFS and Gluster
> are
> two instances of HCFS. from Ignite standpoint replacing one with another
> doesn't give much advantage (unless I am missing something about the
> Gluster).
> Hopefully it makes sense?
>
> > Not trying to argue -- just generally curious.  :)
>
> Not trying to cast a shadow on Gluster nor whitewash HDFS (far from it) ;)
>
> Cos
>
> > Thanks!
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think file system is more universally used. However, one can build
> an FS
> > > on
> > > top of a good object storage - just need to provide some metadata
> > > abstraction/concept.
> > >
> > > Replacing HDFS w/ Gluster doesn't make much sense to me (if ever be
> > > considered). What I like about Ceph is that it is native to Linux,
> unlike
> > > all
> > > other artificial HCFS contraptions. Hence my initial question.
> > >
> > > Cos
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 01:53AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > > > Hm... I would think that file system would be more beneficial,
> although
> > > > object store on disk can also be valuable.
> > > >
> > > > Cos, what is your thinking?
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 8:40 PM, RJ Nowling <rnowling@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ceph makes a better object store while Gluster makes a better file
> > > system.
> > > > >   That's why Ceph is a popular backend for OpenStack Swift.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does Ignite want a FS or Object backend?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Good point... although I was curious about Ignite's take on
that
> > > first
> > > > > and
> > > > > > foremost. Yet, cross-posting to dev@bigtop.a.o
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jay et all: any thoughts about the combination?
> > > > > >   Cos
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 03:14PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > > > > > > I'm sure our RH brethren have something to say about Ceph.
> > > > > > > Re-post on dev@bigtop?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Roman.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
> cos@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was looking at the Hadoop accelerator the other
day and
> been
> > > > > > thinking if
> > > > > > > > anyone has tried to use IGFS on top of a real distributed
> file
> > > > > > storage. The
> > > > > > > > case in point is Ceph (ceph.com) - a Linux file system
> available
> > > > > from
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > major Linux distribution as a kernel module.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > HDFS has its share in the world, but it isn't the
fastest,
> > > simplest,
> > > > > > nor most
> > > > > > > > advantageous distributed storage on the planet. Hence
I am
> > > wondering
> > > > > > if this
> > > > > > > > would be a good call to provide Ignite on CEPH as
a 2nd FS
> > > > > > capabilities.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >   Cos
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>

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