hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From D S <desmi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: HBase & BigTable + History: Can it run decently on a 512MB machine? What's the difference between the two?
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:28:14 GMT
Simple, I want to see what is meant by the claim that HBase = Big Table.
 How far does this claim go?

How identical are the two products?  Does it stop at
the fronted specifications?  Does it go into the internals?  I just want to
know how identical these two products are and how different are the two.

If I took the current build of HBase and had a time machine and installed
it in all those circa 2003 Google servers (and not one server more), would
I end up with something similar to what Google had back then?

Is there anyone in this mailing list who has any experience w/ BigTable
(older versions)?

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM, lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com> wrote:

> This is a hypothetical question. Why do you care?
> Can you run current Windows on '03 machines? Or Linux (with KDE/Gnome)?
>
> HBase is designed for modern machines.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: D S <desmisnm@gmail.com>
> To: user@hbase.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2012 11:39 AM
> Subject: Re: HBase & BigTable + History: Can it run decently on a 512MB
> machine? What's the difference between the two?
>
> On 3/5/12, Michael Drzal <mdrzal@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You really need to consider the entire historical context here.  A lot of
> > the memory used in hbase is buffering writes to disk and for the block
> > cache.  These days, it isn't unreasonable to get 12 2-3TB disks in a
> > commodity server.  Back in 2003, you would not get as many disks, and
> they
> > would be much smaller.  One way to think about it is the ratio of
> RAM/disk
> > space or more operationally what your cache hit ratio is and how busy
> your
> > disk drives are.
> >
> >   Drz
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:25 AM, D S <desmisnm@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm learning more about HBase and I'm curious how much of HBase is
> >> actually based on Google's original dB.  In Google's origins stories,
> >> they are well known for using low cost commodity hardware in scale in
> >> order to store their web database.
> >>
> >> Almost every blog I read about HBase tells me it's a clone of
> >> BigTable.  Almost every blog I've read about HBase also tells me to
> >> use a lot of RAM - gigabytes worth.  Some even tell me not to even
> >> consider HBase with less than 4GB of RAM.
> >>
> >> If I remember my history correctly, a commodity machine in the year
> >> 2003 had around 512MB to 1GB of RAM in it.  The fancier ones had, 2GB.
> >>  From everything I've read, running HBase on such machines is a very
> >> bad idea yet this was the machines readily available in the year 2003
> >> when Google started it's growth.
> >>
> >> I'm confused at the moment.  Can someone give me a bit of background
> >> about how HBase performance is handled from the "low" end which was
> >> considered "high" end back then?  Should I assume that HBase is just a
> >> clone of BigTable?  What is HBase's history?  Are the blogs wrong?
> >>
> >> Thanks for any clarification anyone can give.
> >>
> >
>
> Is HBase's configuration options robust enough that it could go back
> and run well on those 2003 specs by a bit of tweaking if that what was
> desired?
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message