incubator-hama-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "ChiaHung Lin" <chl...@nuk.edu.tw>
Subject Re: About HAMA-410
Date Fri, 08 Jul 2011 07:22:00 GMT
This looks ok from the perspective of executing function. In addition, I have a few questions
and would like to gain more ideas on how it may work after refactored. 

From the GroomServer source, it seems that BSPPeer and Task perform different roles where
Task takes responsibility of task execution and BSPPeer in communication (sync, send). What's
the benefit of mering two different roles into one? 

How do a BSPPeer distinguish other peers only related to computation itself involved in? For
instance, each GroomServer has 3 tasks where tasks are divided into 3 groups including {1,4,7},
{2,5,8} and {3,6,9}. How do they communicate e.g without falsely sync with different peers?

GroomServerA	GroomServerB	GroomServerC
BSPPeer1	BSPPeer4	BSPPeer7
BSPPeer2	BSPPeer5	BSPPeer8
BSPPeer3	BSPPeer6	BSPPeer9

-----Original message-----
From:Edward J. Yoon <edwardyoon@apache.org>
To:hama-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:48:48 +0900
Subject:About HAMA-410

Hi,

To support multi-tasks, I'm thinking about merging BSPPeer and Task.
Then, communication will be occurred among Tasks directly. I think,
there's no need to manage BSPPeers inside GroomServer.

Can we think about the latent side-effects from this decision, together?

Thanks.

-- 
Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
@eddieyoon


--
ChiaHung Lin
Department of Information Management
National University of Kaohsiung
Taiwan

Mime
View raw message