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

Switch to Threaded View
MapReduce >> mail # user >> Re: Cloudera Vs Hortonworks Vs MapR


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Cloudera Vs Hortonworks Vs MapR
So here's an example of marketing FUD at work.

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Xuri Nagarin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> So I will try to answer the OP's question best I can without deviating too
> much into opinions and stick to facts. Disclaimer: I am not an employee of
> either vendor or any partner of theirs.
>
> Context is important: My team's use case was general data exploration of
> semi-structured log data and we had no typical data-warehouse type of
> existing use cases. Also, our's is a small (less than 30 nodes cluster). In
> terms of ops/maintenance, we only have one person. I point this out because
> lots of hadoop shops have dedicated team for each - OS administration,
> Hadoop admin, Hadoop developers. And, they are very mature in terms of
> their compute use cases. To my mind, these aspects can significantly impact
> your vendor choices.
>
> MapR: My team simply did not consider them because of all the proprietary
> code in there. We are trying to move from a monolithic proprietary product
> and one of the criteria we set was - if we decided to move away from the
> chosen hadoop vendor, can we easily unlock our data?
>

Unlock your data? How about disctp? Or just "cp"?

The fact is there are 10x  more standard ways to access your data in a MapR
cluster versus a Cloudera or Hortonworks data.

MapR is entirely open source, with proprietary add-ons, just like Cloudera
or Hortonworks.

The difference is MapR has innovated both above and below the Hadoop stack,
while Cloudera and Horton have only done so above the stack. MapR's
innovations have set the bar so high that its competition likes to spread
FUD.

[disclaimer: I work for MapR ]

> HortonWorks: Distro uses HDFS 1.x with MRv2. All open source. Cluster
> management is via Ambari. Compared to Cloudera's CM, Ambari has very
> rudimentary features. But you have to keep in mind that Ambari is only an
> year old where as CM already has been under development for several years.
> This was a major selection factor for us because Ambari did not have all
> the automation/feature-set compared to CM for a single
> administrator/developer to easily maintain the cluster. Also, during the
> trial period, Hortonwork's packing format/structure apparently kept
> changing which made things a bit difficult to centrally deploy/administer.
>
> Cloudera: Distro uses HDFS 2.x with MRv1. All open source except cluster
> management which is via their proprietary Cloudera Manager tool. It is free
> for use without certain feature like auditing and cluster replication
> features. Maybe a few more features are restricted to
> Enterprise/Licensed-only version. Offers much more features than Ambari. In
> terms of cluster administration, I found CM much easy to work with than
> Ambari. Pretty much all aspects from deploying new nodes to configuration
> and troubleshooting is much more refined than Ambari.
>
> During the selection process, what I found was that both vendors are very
> aggressive in their pitch. So much so that each pushes some FUD regarding
> the competition.
>

Obviously some of it worked, given some of the statements earlier.

>
> HW uses HDFS 1.x + MRv2 while CDH uses HDFS 2.x + MRv1. HW claimed that
> Cloudera's distro is heavily patched off-course from the core Apache trunk
> that can cause severe data corruption issues. Yes, Cloudera has some 1500+
> patches over apache's Hadoop distro but (1) they aren't private patches.
> You can pull the list and verify that yourself just as I did. (2) In our
> testing and talking to other Cloudera customers, I couldn't find any issues
> with data corruption. It is true though that HDFS 2.x is still in beta but
> so is MRv2 that HW uses. I think both are stable and work well - depending
> on what you need but each uses that point to create FUD.
>
> HW also claimed that a new SQL engine that Cloudera's including in their
> distro - Impala is proprietary. Not true. The software is open source. But
> if you want support for Impala then Cloudera will charge you separately per