Seems like a heavyweight solution unless you are actually processing the
Wow, no mapreduce, no streaming writes, and relatively small files. Im
surprised that you are considering hadoop at all ?
Im surprised there isnt a simpler solution that uses redundancy without all
daemons and name nodes and task trackers and stuff.
Might make it kind of awkward as a normal file system.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Harsh J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Matt,
> What do you mean by 'real-time' though? While HDFS has pretty good
> contiguous data read speeds (and you get N x replicas to read from),
> if you're looking to "cache" frequently accessed files into memory
> then HDFS does not natively have support for that. Otherwise, I agree
> with Brock, seems like you could make it work with HDFS (sans
> MapReduce - no need to run it if you don't need it).
> The presence of NameNode audit logging will help your file access
> analysis requirement.
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Matt Painter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I am a new Hadoop user, and would really appreciate your opinions on
> > Hadoop is the right tool for what I'm thinking of using it for.
> > I am investigating options for scaling an archive of around 100Tb of
> > data. These images are typically TIFF files of around 50-100Mb each and
> > to be made available online in realtime. Access to the files will be
> > sporadic and occasional, but writing the files will be a daily activity.
> > Speed of write is not particularly important.
> > Our previous solution was a monolithic, expensive - and very full - SAN
> so I
> > am excited by Hadoop's distributed, extensible, redundant architecture.
> > My concern is that a lot of the discussion on and use cases for Hadoop is
> > regarding data processing with MapReduce and - from what I understand -
> > using HDFS for the purpose of input for MapReduce jobs. My other concern
> > vague indication that it's not a 'real-time' system. We may be using
> > MapReduce in small components of the application, but it will most
> likely be
> > in file access analysis rather than any processing on the files
> > In other words, what I really want is a distributed, resilient, scalable
> > filesystem.
> > Is Hadoop suitable if we just use this facility, or would I be misusing
> > and inviting grief?
> > M
> Harsh J