incubator-hama-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Edward J. Yoon" <edwardy...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Barrier Synchronization
Date Mon, 17 Oct 2011 04:59:37 GMT
IMO, it should be designed as a common component and we don't need to
compete with Zookeeper team to implement a distributed lock management
system.

Here's my thoughts:

The benefits you said e.g., performance and simple code, are skeptical to me.

First, the cost of lock operations is not a large part of whole job
performance. In large cluster, reliability will be more important.
Zookeepr can be used not only for distributed locking service but also
for the master election, event management in the future. And, we can
just contribute the code to Zookeeper if needed. Are you sure that we
can keep the complexity of our own sync server?

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Thomas Jungblut
<thomas.jungblut@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> as you may already heard, I used a RPC sync service which I have wrote on my
> own. It works, but it may not be as good as Zookeeper.
> My idea:
> We can make a "AbstractBSPPeer" class which has following methods:
>  abstract enterBarrier();
>  abstract leaveBarrier();
>  abstract getAllPeerNames();
>
> These are obviously things that belong to the our specific synchronization
> daemon.
> Now we could extend an ZooKeeperBSPPeer which implements the ZooKeeper way
> of barrier sync and a RPC one.
>
> Or to push it even further, take on Edwards idea of a common synchronization
> service which abstracts the use of ZooKeeper or an RPC service.
> My goal of the RPC service is to keep simplicity in our code and built a
> overhead-less service which provides additional features, e.G. deregistering
> a task from a barrier.
> It would be great if we can benchmark them both to get a gist of what is the
> best in terms of performance and reliability.
> So I would be +1 for Edwards idea. Maybe you can clarify this a bit @Edward.
> [1]
> Edwards idea would help us to share common code between YARN and normal
> infrastructure.
>
> [1] my thoughts: we need some kind of factory which launches a specific sync
> daemon, based on a given configuration.
>
> It would be great if you can share your opinion :)
> Thanks!
>



-- 
Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
@eddieyoon

Mime
View raw message