ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Ignite as distributed file storage
Date Thu, 02 Aug 2018 03:11:44 GMT
Dmitriy, Pavel,

Everything that gets accepted into the project has to make sense. I agree
with Vladimir - we do not need more than one file system in Ignite. Given
the number of usage and questions we get about IGFS, I would question
whether Ignite needs a file system at all.

As community members we should drive the community towards improving the
project instead of advocating that no change will be rejected, no matter
what it is. In this case, I am not convinced this is a real problem for
users and why should Ignite even try to solve it.

Instead, if we must focus on large blobs, I would solve the problem of
supporting large blobs in regular Ignite caches, as I suggested before.

D.

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:50 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Vladimir,
>
> I think not accepting by community is possible only if PMC will veto
> change. I didn't find any reasons why not to do this change and why it can
> be vetoed..
>
> I would appreciate if you will become mentor of this change and will assist
> to Pavel or other community member to make this happen.
>
> To my mind, the Apache Way is not abot rejecting things, it is about
> sharing knowlege. If you will be able to share you experience to grow
> community it would be good donation.
>
> If you have any disagreements about this change, can we set up voice call
> where you will explain how to do this proposal as good as it is possible.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
> пт, 6 июл. 2018 г. в 10:35, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>:
>
> > Pavel,
> >
> > I do not think it is a good idea to delay discussions and decisions.
> > Because it puts your efforts at risk being not accepted by community in
> the
> > end. Our ultimate goal is not having as much features as possible, but to
> > have a consistent product which is easy to understand and use. Having
> both
> > IGFS and another one "not-IGFS" which is in fact the same IGFS but with
> > different name is not a good idea, because it would cause more harm than
> > value.
> >
> > Approaches which seems reasonable to me:
> > 1) Integrate your ideas into IGFS, which is really flexible in how to
> > process data and where to store it. PROXY mode is not a "crutch" as you
> > said, but a normal mode which was used in real deployments.
> > 2) Replace IGFS with your solution but with clear explanation how it is
> > better than IGFS and why we need to drop thousands lines of battle-tested
> > code with something new, what does virtually the same thing
> > 3) Just drop IGFS from the product, and do not implement any replacement
> at
> > all - personally, I am all for this decision.
> >
> > If you want I can guide you through IGFS architecture so that we better
> > understand what should be done to integrate your ideas into it.
> >
> > Lat, but not least - we need objective facts why proposed solution is
> > better in terms of performance - concrete use cases and performance
> numbers
> > (or at least estimations).
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 1:45 AM Pavel Kovalenko <jokserfn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Vladimir,
> > >
> > > I just want to add to my words, that we can implement BLOB storage and
> > > then, if community really wants it, we can adapt this storage to use as
> > > underlying file system in IGFS. But IGFS shouldn't be entry point for
> > BLOB
> > > storage. I think this conclusion can satisfy both of us.
> > >
> > > 2018-07-06 0:47 GMT+03:00 Pavel Kovalenko <jokserfn@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Vladimir,
> > > >
> > > > I didn't say that it stores data in on-heap, I said that it performs
> a
> > > lot
> > > > of operations with byte[] arrays in on-heap as I see in , which will
> > lead
> > > > to frequent GCs and unnecessary data copying.
> > > > "But the whole idea around mmap sounds like premature optimisation to
> > me"
> > > > - this is not premature optimisation, this is on of the key
> performance
> > > > features. E.g. Apache Kafka wouldn't be so fast and extremely
> > performant
> > > > without zero-copy.
> > > > If we can do better, why not just do it? Especially if it costs
> nothing
> > > > for us (This is OS level).
> > > > As I said in my first message, our end target is handling video and
> > > > streaming, copying every chunk of it to on-heap userspace then to
> > offheap
> > > > and then to disk is unacceptable.
> > > > You ask me to implement almost anything using just IGFS interface,
> why
> > we
> > > > need to do that? Proxy mode looks like crutch, to support replication
> > and
> > > > possibility to have some data in-memory I need to write again a lot
> of
> > > > stuff.
> > > > Let's finally leave IGFS alone and wait for IEP.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2018-07-06 0:01 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>:
> > > >
> > > >> Pavel,
> > > >>
> > > >> IGFS doesn't enforce you to have block in heap. What you suggest can
> > be
> > > >> achieved with IGFS as follows:
> > > >> 1) Disable caching, so data cache is not used ("PROXY" mode)
> > > >> 2) Implement IgniteFileSystem interface which operates on abstract
> > > streams
> > > >>
> > > >> But the whole idea around mmap sounds like premature optimisation
to
> > > me. I
> > > >> conducted a number of experiments with IGFS on large Hadoop
> workload.
> > > Even
> > > >> with old AI 1.x architecture, where everything was stored onheap,
I
> > > never
> > > >> had an issue with GC. The key point is that IGFS operates on large
> > > (64Kb)
> > > >> data blocks, so even with 100Gb full of these blocks you will have
> > > >> relatively small number of objects and normal GC pauses. Additional
> > > memory
> > > >> copying is not an issue either in most workloads in distributed
> > systems,
> > > >> because most of the time is spent on IO and internal synchronization
> > > >> anyway.
> > > >>
> > > >> Do you have specific scenario when you observed long GC pauses with
> GC
> > > or
> > > >> serious performance degradation with IGFS?
> > > >>
> > > >> Even if we agree that mmap usage is a critical piece, all we need
is
> > to
> > > >> implement a single IGFS interface.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 10:44 PM Pavel Kovalenko <jokserfn@gmail.com
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Vladimir,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The key difference between BLOB storage and IGFS is that BLOB
> > storage
> > > >> will
> > > >> > have persistent-based architecture with possibility to cache
> blocks
> > in
> > > >> > offheap (using mmap, which is more simple, because we delegate
it
> to
> > > OS
> > > >> > level)
> > > >> > , while IGFS has in-memory based architecture with possibility
to
> > > >> persist
> > > >> > blocks.
> > > >> > BLOB storage will have possibility to work with small amount
of
> RAM
> > > >> without
> > > >> > signficant performance drop (Using zero-copy from socket to disk)
> > and
> > > in
> > > >> > opposite case it can keep all available blocks in offheap if
it's
> > > >> possible
> > > >> > (Using mmap again).
> > > >> > IGFS perform a lot of operations with blocks in on-heap which
> leads
> > to
> > > >> > unnecessary data copies, long GC pauses and performance drop.
All
> > IGFS
> > > >> > architecture tightly bound with in-memory features, so it's too
> hard
> > > to
> > > >> > rewrite IGFS in persistent-based manner. But, cool IGFS features
> > such
> > > as
> > > >> > intelligent affinity routing, chunk colocation will be reused
in
> > BLOB
> > > >> > storage.
> > > >> > Does it make sense?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 2018-07-05 19:01 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com
> >:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Pavel,
> > > >> > > Design you described is almost precisely what IGFS does.
It has
> a
> > > >> cache
> > > >> > for
> > > >> > > metadata, split binary data in chunks with intelligent affinity
> > > >> routing.
> > > >> > In
> > > >> > > addition we have map-reduce feature on top of it and integration
> > > with
> > > >> > > underlying file system with optional caching. Data can be
> accessed
> > > in
> > > >> > > blocks or streams. IGFS is not in active development, but
it is
> > not
> > > >> > > outdated either.
> > > >> > > Can you shortly explain why do you think that we need to
drop
> IGFS
> > > and
> > > >> > > re-implement almost the same thing from scratch?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Dima, Sergey,
> > > >> > > Yes, we need BLOB support you described. Unfortunately it
is not
> > > that
> > > >> > easy
> > > >> > > to implement from SQL perspective. To support it we would
need
> > > either
> > > >> > MVCC
> > > >> > > (with it's own drawbacks) or read-locks for SELECT.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Vladimir.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 10:40 AM Sergey Kozlov <
> > skozlov@gridgain.com
> > > >
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Dmitriy
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > You're right that that large objects storing should
be
> optmized.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Let's assume the large object means the regular object
having
> > > large
> > > >> > > fields
> > > >> > > > and such fileds won't be used for comparison thus we
can do
> not
> > > >> restore
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > BLOB fields in offheap page memory e.g for sql queries
if
> select
> > > >> > doesn't
> > > >> > > > include them explicitly. It can reduce page eviction
and speed
> > up
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > perfomance and make less chance to get OOM.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > >> > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > To be honest, I am not sure if we need to kick
off another
> > file
> > > >> > system
> > > >> > > > > storage discussion in Ignite. It sounds like a
huge effort
> and
> > > >> likely
> > > >> > > > will
> > > >> > > > > not be productive.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > However, I think an ability to store large objects
will make
> > > >> sense.
> > > >> > For
> > > >> > > > > example, how do I store a 10GB blob in Ignite
cache? Most
> > likely
> > > >> we
> > > >> > > have
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > have a separate memory or disk space, allocated
for blobs
> > only.
> > > We
> > > >> > also
> > > >> > > > > need to be able to efficiently transfer a 10GB
Blob object
> > over
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > network
> > > >> > > > > and store it off-heap right away, without bringing
it into
> > main
> > > >> heap
> > > >> > > > memory
> > > >> > > > > (otherwise we would run out of memory).
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I suggest that we create an IEP about this use
case alone
> and
> > > >> leave
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > file system for the future discussions.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > D.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 6:50 AM, Vladimir Ozerov
<
> > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Thank you. I'll wait for feature comparison
and concrete
> use
> > > >> cases,
> > > >> > > > > because
> > > >> > > > > > for me this feature still sounds too abstract
to judge
> > whether
> > > >> > > product
> > > >> > > > > > would benefit from it.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:15 PM Pavel Kovalenko
<
> > > >> jokserfn@gmail.com
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > I think we have a little miscommunication
here. Of
> > course, I
> > > >> > meant
> > > >> > > > > > > supporting large entries / chunks of
binary data.
> > Internally
> > > >> it
> > > >> > > will
> > > >> > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > BLOB storage, which can be accessed
through various
> > > >> interfaces.
> > > >> > > > > > > "File" is just an abstraction for an
end user for
> > > >> convenience, a
> > > >> > > > > wrapper
> > > >> > > > > > > layer to have user-friendly API to directly
store BLOBs.
> > We
> > > >> > > shouldn't
> > > >> > > > > > > support full file protocol support with
file system
> > > >> capabilities.
> > > >> > > It
> > > >> > > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > added later, but now it's absolutely
unnecessary and
> > > >> introduces
> > > >> > > extra
> > > >> > > > > > > complexity.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > We can implement our BLOB storage step
by step. The
> first
> > > >> thing
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > > > > > core functionality and support to save
large parts of
> > binary
> > > >> > > objects
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > it.
> > > >> > > > > > > "File" layer, Web layer, etc. can be
added later.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > The initial IGFS design doesn't have
good capabilities
> to
> > > >> have a
> > > >> > > > > > > persistence layer. I think we shouldn't
do any changes
> to
> > > it,
> > > >> > this
> > > >> > > > > > project
> > > >> > > > > > > as for me is almost outdated. We will
drop IGFS after
> > > >> > implementing
> > > >> > > > File
> > > >> > > > > > > System layer over our BLOB storage.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Vladimir,
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > I will prepare a comparison with other
existing
> > distributed
> > > >> file
> > > >> > > > > storages
> > > >> > > > > > > and file systems in a few days.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > About usage data grid, I never said,
that we need
> > > >> transactions,
> > > >> > > sync
> > > >> > > > > > backup
> > > >> > > > > > > and etc. We need just a few core things
- Atomic cache
> > with
> > > >> > > > > persistence,
> > > >> > > > > > > Discovery, Baseline, Affinity, and Communication.
> > > >> > > > > > > Other things we can implement by ourselves.
So this
> > feature
> > > >> can
> > > >> > > > develop
> > > >> > > > > > > independently of other non-core features.
> > > >> > > > > > > For me Ignite way is providing to our
users a fast and
> > > >> convenient
> > > >> > > way
> > > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > solve their problems with good performance
and
> durability.
> > > We
> > > >> > have
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > problem with storing large data, we
should solve it.
> > > >> > > > > > > About other things see my message to
Dmitriy above.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > вс, 1 июл. 2018 г. в 9:48, Dmitriy
Setrakyan <
> > > >> > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > >> > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > I have actually misunderstood the
use case. To be
> > honest,
> > > I
> > > >> > > thought
> > > >> > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > > > you were talking about the support
of large values in
> > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > caches,
> > > >> > > > > > e.g.
> > > >> > > > > > > > objects that are several megabytes
in cache.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > If we are tackling the distributed
file system, then
> in
> > my
> > > >> > view,
> > > >> > > we
> > > >> > > > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > > > be talking about IGFS and adding
persistence support
> to
> > > IGFS
> > > >> > > (which
> > > >> > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > > > based on HDFS API). It is not clear
to me that you are
> > > >> talking
> > > >> > > > about
> > > >> > > > > > > IGFS.
> > > >> > > > > > > > Can you confirm?
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > D.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 10:59 AM,
Pavel Kovalenko <
> > > >> > > > > jokserfn@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Yes, I have approximate design
in my mind. The main
> > idea
> > > >> is
> > > >> > > that
> > > >> > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > > > already
> > > >> > > > > > > > > have distributed cache for
files metadata (our
> Atomic
> > > >> cache),
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > data
> > > >> > > > > > > > flow
> > > >> > > > > > > > > and distribution will be controlled
by our
> > > >> AffinityFunction
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > > > > > Baseline.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > We're already have discovery
and communication to
> make
> > > >> such
> > > >> > > local
> > > >> > > > > > files
> > > >> > > > > > > > > storages to be synced. The
files data will be
> > separated
> > > to
> > > >> > > large
> > > >> > > > > > blocks
> > > >> > > > > > > > > (64-128Mb) (which looks very
similar to our WAL).
> Each
> > > >> block
> > > >> > > can
> > > >> > > > > > > contain
> > > >> > > > > > > > > one or more file chunks. The
tablespace (segment
> ids,
> > > >> offsets
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > > > > etc.)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > will be stored to our regular
page memory. This is
> key
> > > >> ideas
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > > > > implement
> > > >> > > > > > > > > first version of such storage.
We already have
> > similiar
> > > >> > > > components
> > > >> > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > our
> > > >> > > > > > > > > persistence, so this experience
can be reused to
> > develop
> > > >> such
> > > >> > > > > > storage.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Nothing significant should
be changed at our memory
> > > >> level. It
> > > >> > > > will
> > > >> > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > separate, pluggable component
over cache. Most of
> the
> > > >> > functions
> > > >> > > > > which
> > > >> > > > > > > > give
> > > >> > > > > > > > > performance boost can be delegated
to OS level
> (Memory
> > > >> mapped
> > > >> > > > > files,
> > > >> > > > > > > DMA,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Direct write from Socket to
disk and vice versa).
> > Ignite
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > File
> > > >> > > > > > > Storage
> > > >> > > > > > > > > can develop independetly of
each other.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Alexey Stelmak, which has
a great experience with
> > > >> developing
> > > >> > > such
> > > >> > > > > > > systems
> > > >> > > > > > > > > can provide more low level
information about how it
> > > should
> > > >> > > look.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > сб, 30 июн. 2018 г.
в 19:40, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > >> > > > > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Pavel, it definitely
makes sense. Do you have a
> > design
> > > >> in
> > > >> > > mind?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > D.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018,
07:24 Pavel Kovalenko <
> > > >> > > > jokserfn@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I would like to
start a discussion about
> > designing a
> > > >> new
> > > >> > > > > feature
> > > >> > > > > > > > > because
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > think it's time
to start making steps towards
> it.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I noticed, that
some of our users have tried to
> > > store
> > > >> > large
> > > >> > > > > > > > homogenous
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > entries (> 1,
10, 100 Mb/Gb/Tb) to our caches,
> but
> > > >> > without
> > > >> > > > big
> > > >> > > > > > > > success.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > IGFS project has
the possibility to do it, but
> as
> > > for
> > > >> me
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > > > has
> > > >> > > > > > one
> > > >> > > > > > > > big
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > disadvantage - it's
in-memory only, so users
> have
> > a
> > > >> > strict
> > > >> > > > size
> > > >> > > > > > > limit
> > > >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > their data and have
data loss problem.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Our durable memory
has a possibility to persist
> a
> > > data
> > > >> > that
> > > >> > > > > > doesn't
> > > >> > > > > > > > fit
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > RAM to disk, but
page structure of it is not
> > > supposed
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > > store
> > > >> > > > > > > large
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > pieces
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > of data.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > There are a lot
of projects of distributed file
> > > >> systems
> > > >> > > like
> > > >> > > > > > HDFS,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > GlusterFS, etc.
But all of them concentrate to
> > > >> implement
> > > >> > > > > > high-grade
> > > >> > > > > > > > > file
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > protocol, rather
than user-friendly API which
> > leads
> > > to
> > > >> > high
> > > >> > > > > entry
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > threshold
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to start implementing
something over it.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't go
in this way. Our main goal
> should
> > be
> > > >> > > > providing
> > > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > user
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > and fast way to
use file storage and processing
> > here
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > now.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > If take HDFS as
closest possible by
> functionality
> > > >> > project,
> > > >> > > we
> > > >> > > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > > > one
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > big
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > advantage against
it. We can use our caches as
> > files
> > > >> > > metadata
> > > >> > > > > > > storage
> > > >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > have the infinite
possibility to scale it, while
> > > HDFS
> > > >> is
> > > >> > > > > bounded
> > > >> > > > > > by
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Namenode capacity
and has big problems with
> > keeping
> > > a
> > > >> > large
> > > >> > > > > > number
> > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > files
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > in the system.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We achieved very
good experience with
> persistence
> > > >> when we
> > > >> > > > > > developed
> > > >> > > > > > > > our
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > durable memory,
and we can couple together it
> and
> > > >> > > experience
> > > >> > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > services,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > binary protocol,
I/O and start to design a new
> > IEP.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Use cases and features
of the project:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 1) Storing XML,
JSON, BLOB, CLOB, images,
> videos,
> > > >> text,
> > > >> > etc
> > > >> > > > > > without
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > overhead and data
loss possibility.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 2) Easy, pluggable,
fast and distributed file
> > > >> processing,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > transformation
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > and analysis. (E.g.
ImageMagick processor for
> > images
> > > >> > > > > > > transformation,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > LuceneIndex for
texts, whatever, it's bounded
> only
> > > by
> > > >> > your
> > > >> > > > > > > > > imagination).
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 3) Scalability out
of the box.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 4) User-friendly
API and minimal steps to start
> > > using
> > > >> > this
> > > >> > > > > > storage
> > > >> > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > production.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I repeated again,
this project is not supposed
> to
> > > be a
> > > >> > > > > high-grade
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > distributed file
system with full file protocol
> > > >> support.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > This project should
primarily focus on target
> > users,
> > > >> > which
> > > >> > > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > > like
> > > >> > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > use it without complex
preparation.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > As for example,
a user can deploy Ignite with
> such
> > > >> > storage
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > web-server
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > with REST API as
Ignite service and get
> scalable,
> > > >> > > performant
> > > >> > > > > > image
> > > >> > > > > > > > > server
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > out of the box which
can be accessed using any
> > > >> > programming
> > > >> > > > > > > language.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > As a far target
goal, we should focus on storing
> > and
> > > >> > > > > processing a
> > > >> > > > > > > > very
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > large amount of
the data like movies, streaming,
> > > >> which is
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > big
> > > >> > > > > > > > trend
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > today.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I would like to
say special thanks to our
> > community
> > > >> > members
> > > >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Stelmak
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > and Dmitriy Govorukhin
which significantly
> helped
> > me
> > > >> to
> > > >> > put
> > > >> > > > > > > together
> > > >> > > > > > > > > all
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > pieces of that puzzle.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > So, I want to hear
your opinions about this
> > > proposal.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > Sergey Kozlov
> > > >> > > > GridGain Systems
> > > >> > > > www.gridgain.com
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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