Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HDFS >> mail # user >> HDFS without Hadoop: Why?

Copy link to this message
Re: HDFS without Hadoop: Why?

Great references. There is a good place to put them to:
GPFS and Lustre papers are not there yet, I believe.


On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Nathan Rutman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Feb 2, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
> Thanks for the link Stu.
> More details are on limitations are here:
> http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2010-04/openpdfs/shvachko.pdf
> I think that Nathan raised an interesting question and his assessment of
> HDFS use
> cases are generally right.
> Some assumptions though are outdated at this point.
> And people mentioned about it in the thread.
> We have append implementation, which allows reopening files for updates.
> We also have symbolic links and quotas (space and name-space).
> The api to HDFS is not posix, true. But in addition to Fuse people also use
> Thrift to access hdfs.
> Most of these features are explained in HDFS overview paper:
> http://storageconference.org/2010/Papers/MSST/Shvachko.pdf
> Stand-alone HDFS is actually used in several places. I like what
> Brian Bockelman at University of Nebraska does.
> They store CERN data in their cluster, and physicists use Fortran to access
> the data,
> not map-reduce, as I heard.
> http://storageconference.org/2010/Presentations/MSST/3.Bockelman.pdf
> This doesn't seem to mention what storage they're using.
> With respect to other distributed file systems. HDFS performance was
> compared to
> PVFS, GPFS and Lustre. The results were in favor of HDFS. See e.g.
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wtantisi/files/hadooppvfs-pdl08.pdf<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/%7Ewtantisi/files/hadooppvfs-pdl08.pdf>
> Some other references for those interested:  HDFS vs
> Cloud analytics: Do we really need to reinvent the storage stack?<http://www.usenix.org/event/hotcloud09/tech/full_papers/ananthanarayanan.pdf>
> Lustre
> http://wiki.lustre.org/images/1/1b/Hadoop_wp_v0.4.2.pdf
> Ceph
> www.usenix.org—maltzahn.pdf<http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2010-08/openpdfs/maltzahn.pdf>
> These GPFS and Lustre papers were both favorable toward HDFS because
> they missed a fundamental issue: for the former FS's, network speed is
> critical.
> HDFS doesn't need network on reads (ideally), and so is simultaneously
> immune to network
> speed, but also cannot take advantage of network speed.  For slow networks
> (1GigE)
> this plays into HDFS's strength, but for fast networks (10GigE,
> Infiniband),
> the balance tips the other way. (My testing: for a heavily loaded network,
> a 3-4x read
> speed factor for Lustre.  For writes, the difference is even more extreme
> (10x),
> since HDFS has to hop all write data over the network twice.)
> Let me say clearly that your choice of FS should depend on which of many
> factors
> are most important to you -- there is no "one size fits all", although that
> sadly makes our
> decisions more complex.  For those using Hadoop that have a high weighting
> on
> IO performance (as well as some other factors I listed in my original
> mail), I suggest you
> at least think about spending money on a fast network and using a FS that
> can utilize it.
> So I agree with Nathan HDFS was designed and optimized as a storage layer
> for
> map-reduce type tasks, but it performs well as a general purpose fs as
> well.
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Stuart Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is the best coverage I've seen from a source that would know:
>> http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/hadoop/posts/2010/05/scalability_of_the_hadoop_dist/
>> One relevant quote:
>> To store 100 million files (referencing 200 million blocks), a name-node
>> should have at least 60 GB of RAM.
>> But, honestly, if you're just building out your cluster, you'll probably
>> run into a lot of other limits first: hard drive space, regionserver memory,
>> the infamous ulimit/xciever :), etc...