Dear:

Nice to meet you!

I am a beginner of hadoop. Recently, I have seen the source of RPC of
hadoop,but now I have a question. As we know,hadoop RPC make use of Dynamic
proxy mechanism ,but

why not use IDL such as CORBA, or AIDL of Android?

Thanks for your early reply.

Best Regards,

jie

 

 

 

 

Hadoop has its RPC machanism mainly Writables to overcome some of the disadvantages on normal serializations.
For more info:
  http://www.lexemetech.com/2008/07/rpc-and-serialization-with-hadoop.html
 
Regards,
Uma
----- Original Message -----
From: jie_zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 12:12 pm
Subject: A question about RPC
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> Dear:
>
> Nice to meet you!
>
> I am a beginner of hadoop. Recently, I have seen the source of RPC of
> hadoop,but now I have a question. As we know,hadoop RPC make use
> of Dynamic
> proxy mechanism ,but
>
> why not use IDL such as CORBA, or AIDL of Android?
>
> Thanks for your early reply.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> jie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

i would love an IDL, plus that modern serialization frameworks such as
protobuf/thrift support versioning (although i still have issues with
different versions of thrift not working nicely together, argh why is that).
the only downside is perhaps that they are a little slower than writables.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Uma Maheswara Rao G 72686 <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hadoop has its RPC machanism mainly Writables to overcome some of the
> disadvantages on normal serializations.
> For more info:
>  http://www.lexemetech.com/2008/07/rpc-and-serialization-with-hadoop.html
>
> Regards,
> Uma
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: jie_zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 12:12 pm
> Subject: A question about RPC
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Dear:
> >
> > Nice to meet you!
> >
> > I am a beginner of hadoop. Recently, I have seen the source of RPC of
> > hadoop,but now I have a question. As we know,hadoop RPC make use
> > of Dynamic
> > proxy mechanism ,but
> >
> > why not use IDL such as CORBA, or AIDL of Android?
> >
> > Thanks for your early reply.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > jie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Hadoop moving towards the Avro IDL for full RPC (in either 0.23 or some later version)?

Matt

From: Koert Kuipers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 4:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A question about RPC

i would love an IDL, plus that modern serialization frameworks such as protobuf/thrift support versioning (although i still have issues with different versions of thrift not working nicely together, argh why is that). the only downside is perhaps that they are a little slower than writables.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Uma Maheswara Rao G 72686 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Hadoop has its RPC machanism mainly Writables to overcome some of the disadvantages on normal serializations.
For more info:
 http://www.lexemetech.com/2008/07/rpc-and-serialization-with-hadoop.html

Regards,
Uma
----- Original Message -----
From: jie_zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 12:12 pm
Subject: A question about RPC
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Dear:
>
> Nice to meet you!
>
> I am a beginner of hadoop. Recently, I have seen the source of RPC of
> hadoop,but now I have a question. As we know,hadoop RPC make use
> of Dynamic
> proxy mechanism ,but
>
> why not use IDL such as CORBA, or AIDL of Android?
>
> Thanks for your early reply.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> jie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

This e-mail message may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and is intended to be received only by persons entitled
to receive such information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. Please delete it and
all attachments from any servers, hard drives or any other media. Other use of this e-mail by you is strictly prohibited.

All e-mails and attachments sent and received are subject to monitoring, reading and archival by Monsanto, including its
subsidiaries. The recipient of this e-mail is solely responsible for checking for the presence of "Viruses" or other "Malware".
Monsanto, along with its subsidiaries, accepts no liability for any damage caused by any such code transmitted by or accompanying
this e-mail or any attachment.
The information contained in this email may be subject to the export control laws and regulations of the United States, potentially
including but not limited to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and sanctions regulations issued by the U.S. Department of
Treasury, Office of Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC).  As a recipient of this information you are obligated to comply with all
applicable U.S. export laws and regulations.

IDL's are nice, but old school systems like CORBA are death when you need to
change things.

Avro, protobufs and thrift are all miles better.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Koert Kuipers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> i would love an IDL, plus that modern serialization frameworks such as
> protobuf/thrift support versioning (although i still have issues with
> different versions of thrift not working nicely together, argh why is that).
> the only downside is perhaps that they are a little slower than writables.
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Uma Maheswara Rao G 72686 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hadoop has its RPC machanism mainly Writables to overcome some of the
>> disadvantages on normal serializations.
>> For more info:
>>  http://www.lexemetech.com/2008/07/rpc-and-serialization-with-hadoop.html
>>
>> Regards,
>> Uma
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: jie_zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 12:12 pm
>> Subject: A question about RPC
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> > Dear:
>> >
>> > Nice to meet you!
>> >
>> > I am a beginner of hadoop. Recently, I have seen the source of RPC of
>> > hadoop,but now I have a question. As we know,hadoop RPC make use
>> > of Dynamic
>> > proxy mechanism ,but
>> >
>> > why not use IDL such as CORBA, or AIDL of Android?
>> >
>> > Thanks for your early reply.
>> >
>> > Best Regards,
>> >
>> > jie
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

I don't think protobuf are slower than writable actually, they do really
well in speed. I actually wrote some rpc code in C++ for protocolbuffers
and some swig wrappers to have clients in java. A simple c++ server can
easily handle about 20k qps in that setup and this is just with a naive
implementation where still some excess data copies happen during the
processing of requests. If i have time i would like to opensource it,
but i would need some help to get it running properly in other
languages, so that it can be truly cross language. (right now servers
are only supported in c++, clients are synchronous and asynchronous in
c++, in java only synchronous clients are supported)

On 21.09.2011 22:59, Koert Kuipers wrote:
> i would love an IDL, plus that modern serialization frameworks such as
> protobuf/thrift support versioning (although i still have issues with
> different versions of thrift not working nicely together, argh why is
> that). the only downside is perhaps that they are a little slower than
> writables.
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Uma Maheswara Rao G 72686
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>     Hadoop has its RPC machanism mainly Writables to overcome some of
>     the disadvantages on normal serializations.
>     For more info:
>     http://www.lexemetech.com/2008/07/rpc-and-serialization-with-hadoop.html
>
>     Regards,
>     Uma
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: jie_zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>     Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 12:12 pm
>     Subject: A question about RPC
>     To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>     > Dear:
>     >
>     > Nice to meet you!
>     >
>     > I am a beginner of hadoop. Recently, I have seen the source of
>     RPC of
>     > hadoop,but now I have a question. As we know,hadoop RPC make use
>     > of Dynamic
>     > proxy mechanism ,but
>     >
>     > why not use IDL such as CORBA, or AIDL of Android?
>     >
>     > Thanks for your early reply.
>     >
>     > Best Regards,
>     >
>     > jie
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>

did you build it on top of zmq? i really don't see the need for people
reinventing the low level rcp stuff over and over again. zmq comes with
baked in request-response, pub-sub, and pipeline (distributed processing)
communication. once you rely on protobuf + zmq for the rpc is it trivial to
add clients in other languages, i had java, R and python talking to each
other with minimal effort.

for rcp the comparison of speed is a bit of a moot point, since all the
latency will be in the communication, not so much in the serialization, i
suspect. but once you communicate using protobuf it also becomes really
tempting to store in hadoop using protobuf instead of
writables/sequencefiles, and from what i have heard (i have not tested this
myself) it is a good deal slower in that situation.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Stephan Gammeter <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  I don't think protobuf are slower than writable actually, they do really
> well in speed. I actually wrote some rpc code in C++ for protocolbuffers and
> some swig wrappers to have clients in java. A simple c++ server can easily
> handle about 20k qps in that setup and this is just with a naive
> implementation where still some excess data copies happen during the
> processing of requests. If i have time i would like to opensource it, but i
> would need some help to get it running properly in other languages, so that
> it can be truly cross language. (right now servers are only supported in
> c++, clients are synchronous and asynchronous in c++, in java only
> synchronous clients are supported)
>
>
> On 21.09.2011 22:59, Koert Kuipers wrote:
>
> i would love an IDL, plus that modern serialization frameworks such as
> protobuf/thrift support versioning (although i still have issues with
> different versions of thrift not working nicely together, argh why is that).
> the only downside is perhaps that they are a little slower than writables.
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Uma Maheswara Rao G 72686 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hadoop has its RPC machanism mainly Writables to overcome some of the
>> disadvantages on normal serializations.
>> For more info:
>>  http://www.lexemetech.com/2008/07/rpc-and-serialization-with-hadoop.html
>>
>> Regards,
>> Uma
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>> From: jie_zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 12:12 pm
>> Subject: A question about RPC
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> > Dear:
>> >
>> > Nice to meet you!
>> >
>> > I am a beginner of hadoop. Recently, I have seen the source of RPC of
>> > hadoop,but now I have a question. As we know,hadoop RPC make use
>> > of Dynamic
>> > proxy mechanism ,but
>> >
>> > why not use IDL such as CORBA, or AIDL of Android?
>> >
>> > Thanks for your early reply.
>> >
>> > Best Regards,
>> >
>> > jie
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>

When i started writing i was not aware of zmq yet, so the connection
layer is just written using boost, but it would be quite simple to
replace that with zmq, just have not gotten around to it yet.
 > i really don't see the need for people reinventing the low level rcp
stuff over and over again.
I totally agree! The thing I like about the protobufs is however that
you can directly write your service definition in the .proto file which
gets parsed for you by the protocol buffer compiler and you can access
the parsed definitions via protoc plugins for example. With the plugins
+ protoc compiler nicely integrated into a cross language build system,
it's not minimal effort to have clients in different languages, it's
zero effort. Also it takes a little bit of code if you want to have
multiple services on the same port, being able to list all services and
get service definitions, etc... Basically i have just taken care of that
part.

 > for rcp the comparison of speed is a bit of a moot point, since all
the latency will be in the communication, not so much in the
serialization, i suspect.
Yes the communication of course adds latency but i am talking about
throughput here. If you believe comparison of speed is a bit of a moot
point, then you must be one of the fortunate people that never had to
use SOAP ;) also you need to properly hide the latency and also make
sure you minimize copying data around in memory etc... But I am certain
zeromq does a much better job there than my boost implementation ;)
haven't benchmarked it yet though.

 > but once you communicate using protobuf it also becomes really
tempting to store in hadoop using protobuf instead of
writables/sequencefiles, and from what i have heard (i have not tested
this myself) it is a good deal slower in that situation.
What do you mean of just using protobuf instead of
writables/sequencefiles exactly? I.e. let's assume you just use some
ProtobufToWritable adapter, i don't see how that would be much slower
than using writables, writables and protobufs really just do the same
job, do they not? Except that protobufs are available in other
languages, are defined via the proto language etc... If you use
writables or protobufs, you most likely can serialize faster than you
can write to disk or to network. At least that is my feeling so far from
using protobufs to store stuff in hbase or raw hfiles, but i have to
admit, i have not properly benchmarked this. What kind of fileformat
would you use to write serialized protobufs to, that would make it so
slow? I guess in the end, one just needs to benchmark everything :)

TL;DR
.proto + protocol buffer plugins for generating rpc clients and servers
is really handy. If writables or protobufs are faster needs to be
benchmarked, but probably both serialize faster than one can write.

On 23.09.2011 15:40, Koert Kuipers wrote:
> did you build it on top of zmq? i really don't see the need for people
> reinventing the low level rcp stuff over and over again. zmq comes
> with baked in request-response, pub-sub, and pipeline (distributed
> processing) communication. once you rely on protobuf + zmq for the rpc
> is it trivial to add clients in other languages, i had java, R and
> python talking to each other with minimal effort.
>
> for rcp the comparison of speed is a bit of a moot point, since all
> the latency will be in the communication, not so much in the
> serialization, i suspect. but once you communicate using protobuf it
> also becomes really tempting to store in hadoop using protobuf instead
> of writables/sequencefiles, and from what i have heard (i have not
> tested this myself) it is a good deal slower in that situation.
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Stephan Gammeter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>     I don't think protobuf are slower than writable actually, they do
>     really well in speed. I actually wrote some rpc code in C++ for

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Stephan Gammeter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> TL;DR
> .proto + protocol buffer plugins for generating rpc clients and servers is
> really handy. If writables or protobufs are faster needs to be benchmarked,
> but probably both serialize faster than one can write.

Looking at performance like this is a somewhat narrow view. Of course
pretty much any serialization in any language can serialize faster
than you can write to network. But if you take 50% of a CPU to fill
the network vs 5% of a CPU to fill the network, that drastically
impacts how much other work you can be getting done in other tasks at
the same time. Although many workloads are IO bound, many are not. For
example, if you have a lot of RAM available for HBase, it will become
CPU-bound pretty quick as you are primarily hitting cached data.

-Todd
--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera