ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Ignite as distributed file storage
Date Thu, 02 Aug 2018 09:31:09 GMT
Hi Dmitriy,

I appreciate members which are concentrated on code and selecting best
option.  But as community members we should drive community to grow
accoring 'Community first' principle. And then good project and codebase
will come by magic.

In the same time I suggest to concentrate on investment to comfortable
technical discussion first. For doing this I suggest to support every
member which want to contribute instead of "not accepting things". If first
proposal does not make sence, we, as community, can make this proposal
better together.

If entusiast, which is willing to contribute, requires advocate in the
Community, that indicates that something is going wrong.

I hope it make sence to you and to all of us.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

чт, 2 авг. 2018 г. в 6:12, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:

> Dmitriy, Pavel,
>
> Everything that gets accepted into the project has to make sense. I agree
> with Vladimir - we do not need more than one file system in Ignite. Given
> the number of usage and questions we get about IGFS, I would question
> whether Ignite needs a file system at all.
>
> As community members we should drive the community towards improving the
> project instead of advocating that no change will be rejected, no matter
> what it is. In this case, I am not convinced this is a real problem for
> users and why should Ignite even try to solve it.
>
> Instead, if we must focus on large blobs, I would solve the problem of
> supporting large blobs in regular Ignite caches, as I suggested before.
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:50 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Vladimir,
> >
> > I think not accepting by community is possible only if PMC will veto
> > change. I didn't find any reasons why not to do this change and why it
> can
> > be vetoed..
> >
> > I would appreciate if you will become mentor of this change and will
> assist
> > to Pavel or other community member to make this happen.
> >
> > To my mind, the Apache Way is not abot rejecting things, it is about
> > sharing knowlege. If you will be able to share you experience to grow
> > community it would be good donation.
> >
> > If you have any disagreements about this change, can we set up voice call
> > where you will explain how to do this proposal as good as it is possible.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> > пт, 6 июл. 2018 г. в 10:35, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>:
> >
> > > Pavel,
> > >
> > > I do not think it is a good idea to delay discussions and decisions.
> > > Because it puts your efforts at risk being not accepted by community in
> > the
> > > end. Our ultimate goal is not having as much features as possible, but
> to
> > > have a consistent product which is easy to understand and use. Having
> > both
> > > IGFS and another one "not-IGFS" which is in fact the same IGFS but with
> > > different name is not a good idea, because it would cause more harm
> than
> > > value.
> > >
> > > Approaches which seems reasonable to me:
> > > 1) Integrate your ideas into IGFS, which is really flexible in how to
> > > process data and where to store it. PROXY mode is not a "crutch" as you
> > > said, but a normal mode which was used in real deployments.
> > > 2) Replace IGFS with your solution but with clear explanation how it is
> > > better than IGFS and why we need to drop thousands lines of
> battle-tested
> > > code with something new, what does virtually the same thing
> > > 3) Just drop IGFS from the product, and do not implement any
> replacement
> > at
> > > all - personally, I am all for this decision.
> > >
> > > If you want I can guide you through IGFS architecture so that we better
> > > understand what should be done to integrate your ideas into it.
> > >
> > > Lat, but not least - we need objective facts why proposed solution is
> > > better in terms of performance - concrete use cases and performance
> > numbers
> > > (or at least estimations).
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 1:45 AM Pavel Kovalenko <jokserfn@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Vladimir,
> > > >
> > > > I just want to add to my words, that we can implement BLOB storage
> and
> > > > then, if community really wants it, we can adapt this storage to use
> as
> > > > underlying file system in IGFS. But IGFS shouldn't be entry point for
> > > BLOB
> > > > storage. I think this conclusion can satisfy both of us.
> > > >
> > > > 2018-07-06 0:47 GMT+03:00 Pavel Kovalenko <jokserfn@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Vladimir,
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't say that it stores data in on-heap, I said that it
> performs
> > a
> > > > lot
> > > > > of operations with byte[] arrays in on-heap as I see in , which
> will
> > > lead
> > > > > to frequent GCs and unnecessary data copying.
> > > > > "But the whole idea around mmap sounds like premature optimisation
> to
> > > me"
> > > > > - this is not premature optimisation, this is on of the key
> > performance
> > > > > features. E.g. Apache Kafka wouldn't be so fast and extremely
> > > performant
> > > > > without zero-copy.
> > > > > If we can do better, why not just do it? Especially if it costs
> > nothing
> > > > > for us (This is OS level).
> > > > > As I said in my first message, our end target is handling video and
> > > > > streaming, copying every chunk of it to on-heap userspace then to
> > > offheap
> > > > > and then to disk is unacceptable.
> > > > > You ask me to implement almost anything using just IGFS interface,
> > why
> > > we
> > > > > need to do that? Proxy mode looks like crutch, to support
> replication
> > > and
> > > > > possibility to have some data in-memory I need to write again a lot
> > of
> > > > > stuff.
> > > > > Let's finally leave IGFS alone and wait for IEP.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2018-07-06 0:01 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Pavel,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> IGFS doesn't enforce you to have block in heap. What you suggest
> can
> > > be
> > > > >> achieved with IGFS as follows:
> > > > >> 1) Disable caching, so data cache is not used ("PROXY" mode)
> > > > >> 2) Implement IgniteFileSystem interface which operates on abstract
> > > > streams
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But the whole idea around mmap sounds like premature optimisation
> to
> > > > me. I
> > > > >> conducted a number of experiments with IGFS on large Hadoop
> > workload.
> > > > Even
> > > > >> with old AI 1.x architecture, where everything was stored onheap,
> I
> > > > never
> > > > >> had an issue with GC. The key point is that IGFS operates on
large
> > > > (64Kb)
> > > > >> data blocks, so even with 100Gb full of these blocks you will
have
> > > > >> relatively small number of objects and normal GC pauses.
> Additional
> > > > memory
> > > > >> copying is not an issue either in most workloads in distributed
> > > systems,
> > > > >> because most of the time is spent on IO and internal
> synchronization
> > > > >> anyway.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Do you have specific scenario when you observed long GC pauses
> with
> > GC
> > > > or
> > > > >> serious performance degradation with IGFS?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Even if we agree that mmap usage is a critical piece, all we
need
> is
> > > to
> > > > >> implement a single IGFS interface.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 10:44 PM Pavel Kovalenko <
> jokserfn@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Vladimir,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The key difference between BLOB storage and IGFS is that
BLOB
> > > storage
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> > have persistent-based architecture with possibility to cache
> > blocks
> > > in
> > > > >> > offheap (using mmap, which is more simple, because we delegate
> it
> > to
> > > > OS
> > > > >> > level)
> > > > >> > , while IGFS has in-memory based architecture with possibility
> to
> > > > >> persist
> > > > >> > blocks.
> > > > >> > BLOB storage will have possibility to work with small amount
of
> > RAM
> > > > >> without
> > > > >> > signficant performance drop (Using zero-copy from socket
to
> disk)
> > > and
> > > > in
> > > > >> > opposite case it can keep all available blocks in offheap
if
> it's
> > > > >> possible
> > > > >> > (Using mmap again).
> > > > >> > IGFS perform a lot of operations with blocks in on-heap
which
> > leads
> > > to
> > > > >> > unnecessary data copies, long GC pauses and performance
drop.
> All
> > > IGFS
> > > > >> > architecture tightly bound with in-memory features, so it's
too
> > hard
> > > > to
> > > > >> > rewrite IGFS in persistent-based manner. But, cool IGFS
features
> > > such
> > > > as
> > > > >> > intelligent affinity routing, chunk colocation will be reused
in
> > > BLOB
> > > > >> > storage.
> > > > >> > Does it make sense?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > 2018-07-05 19:01 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> vozerov@gridgain.com
> > >:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Pavel,
> > > > >> > > Design you described is almost precisely what IGFS
does. It
> has
> > a
> > > > >> cache
> > > > >> > for
> > > > >> > > metadata, split binary data in chunks with intelligent
> affinity
> > > > >> routing.
> > > > >> > In
> > > > >> > > addition we have map-reduce feature on top of it and
> integration
> > > > with
> > > > >> > > underlying file system with optional caching. Data
can be
> > accessed
> > > > in
> > > > >> > > blocks or streams. IGFS is not in active development,
but it
> is
> > > not
> > > > >> > > outdated either.
> > > > >> > > Can you shortly explain why do you think that we need
to drop
> > IGFS
> > > > and
> > > > >> > > re-implement almost the same thing from scratch?
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Dima, Sergey,
> > > > >> > > Yes, we need BLOB support you described. Unfortunately
it is
> not
> > > > that
> > > > >> > easy
> > > > >> > > to implement from SQL perspective. To support it we
would need
> > > > either
> > > > >> > MVCC
> > > > >> > > (with it's own drawbacks) or read-locks for SELECT.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Vladimir.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 10:40 AM Sergey Kozlov <
> > > skozlov@gridgain.com
> > > > >
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Dmitriy
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > You're right that that large objects storing should
be
> > optmized.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Let's assume the large object means the regular
object
> having
> > > > large
> > > > >> > > fields
> > > > >> > > > and such fileds won't be used for comparison thus
we can do
> > not
> > > > >> restore
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > BLOB fields in offheap page memory e.g for sql
queries if
> > select
> > > > >> > doesn't
> > > > >> > > > include them explicitly. It can reduce page eviction
and
> speed
> > > up
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > perfomance and make less chance to get OOM.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<
> > > > >> > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > To be honest, I am not sure if we need to
kick off another
> > > file
> > > > >> > system
> > > > >> > > > > storage discussion in Ignite. It sounds like
a huge effort
> > and
> > > > >> likely
> > > > >> > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > not be productive.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > However, I think an ability to store large
objects will
> make
> > > > >> sense.
> > > > >> > For
> > > > >> > > > > example, how do I store a 10GB blob in Ignite
cache? Most
> > > likely
> > > > >> we
> > > > >> > > have
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > have a separate memory or disk space, allocated
for blobs
> > > only.
> > > > We
> > > > >> > also
> > > > >> > > > > need to be able to efficiently transfer a
10GB Blob object
> > > over
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > network
> > > > >> > > > > and store it off-heap right away, without
bringing it into
> > > main
> > > > >> heap
> > > > >> > > > memory
> > > > >> > > > > (otherwise we would run out of memory).
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I suggest that we create an IEP about this
use case alone
> > and
> > > > >> leave
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > file system for the future discussions.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > D.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 6:50 AM, Vladimir
Ozerov <
> > > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Thank you. I'll wait for feature comparison
and concrete
> > use
> > > > >> cases,
> > > > >> > > > > because
> > > > >> > > > > > for me this feature still sounds too
abstract to judge
> > > whether
> > > > >> > > product
> > > > >> > > > > > would benefit from it.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:15 PM Pavel
Kovalenko <
> > > > >> jokserfn@gmail.com
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > I think we have a little miscommunication
here. Of
> > > course, I
> > > > >> > meant
> > > > >> > > > > > > supporting large entries / chunks
of binary data.
> > > Internally
> > > > >> it
> > > > >> > > will
> > > > >> > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > > BLOB storage, which can be accessed
through various
> > > > >> interfaces.
> > > > >> > > > > > > "File" is just an abstraction for
an end user for
> > > > >> convenience, a
> > > > >> > > > > wrapper
> > > > >> > > > > > > layer to have user-friendly API
to directly store
> BLOBs.
> > > We
> > > > >> > > shouldn't
> > > > >> > > > > > > support full file protocol support
with file system
> > > > >> capabilities.
> > > > >> > > It
> > > > >> > > > > can
> > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > > added later, but now it's absolutely
unnecessary and
> > > > >> introduces
> > > > >> > > extra
> > > > >> > > > > > > complexity.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > We can implement our BLOB storage
step by step. The
> > first
> > > > >> thing
> > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > > > > > core functionality and support
to save large parts of
> > > binary
> > > > >> > > objects
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > it.
> > > > >> > > > > > > "File" layer, Web layer, etc. can
be added later.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > The initial IGFS design doesn't
have good capabilities
> > to
> > > > >> have a
> > > > >> > > > > > > persistence layer. I think we shouldn't
do any changes
> > to
> > > > it,
> > > > >> > this
> > > > >> > > > > > project
> > > > >> > > > > > > as for me is almost outdated. We
will drop IGFS after
> > > > >> > implementing
> > > > >> > > > File
> > > > >> > > > > > > System layer over our BLOB storage.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Vladimir,
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > I will prepare a comparison with
other existing
> > > distributed
> > > > >> file
> > > > >> > > > > storages
> > > > >> > > > > > > and file systems in a few days.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > About usage data grid, I never
said, that we need
> > > > >> transactions,
> > > > >> > > sync
> > > > >> > > > > > backup
> > > > >> > > > > > > and etc. We need just a few core
things - Atomic cache
> > > with
> > > > >> > > > > persistence,
> > > > >> > > > > > > Discovery, Baseline, Affinity,
and Communication.
> > > > >> > > > > > > Other things we can implement by
ourselves. So this
> > > feature
> > > > >> can
> > > > >> > > > develop
> > > > >> > > > > > > independently of other non-core
features.
> > > > >> > > > > > > For me Ignite way is providing
to our users a fast and
> > > > >> convenient
> > > > >> > > way
> > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > solve their problems with good
performance and
> > durability.
> > > > We
> > > > >> > have
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > problem with storing large data,
we should solve it.
> > > > >> > > > > > > About other things see my message
to Dmitriy above.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > вс, 1 июл. 2018 г. в 9:48,
Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > >> > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > I have actually misunderstood
the use case. To be
> > > honest,
> > > > I
> > > > >> > > thought
> > > > >> > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > > > you were talking about the
support of large values
> in
> > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > caches,
> > > > >> > > > > > e.g.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > objects that are several megabytes
in cache.
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > If we are tackling the distributed
file system, then
> > in
> > > my
> > > > >> > view,
> > > > >> > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > > should
> > > > >> > > > > > > > be talking about IGFS and
adding persistence support
> > to
> > > > IGFS
> > > > >> > > (which
> > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > > > based on HDFS API). It is
not clear to me that you
> are
> > > > >> talking
> > > > >> > > > about
> > > > >> > > > > > > IGFS.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Can you confirm?
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > D.
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 10:59
AM, Pavel Kovalenko <
> > > > >> > > > > jokserfn@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Yes, I have approximate
design in my mind. The
> main
> > > idea
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> > > that
> > > > >> > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > > > already
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > have distributed cache
for files metadata (our
> > Atomic
> > > > >> cache),
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > data
> > > > >> > > > > > > > flow
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > and distribution will
be controlled by our
> > > > >> AffinityFunction
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > > > > > > Baseline.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > We're already have discovery
and communication to
> > make
> > > > >> such
> > > > >> > > local
> > > > >> > > > > > files
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > storages to be synced.
The files data will be
> > > separated
> > > > to
> > > > >> > > large
> > > > >> > > > > > blocks
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > (64-128Mb) (which looks
very similar to our WAL).
> > Each
> > > > >> block
> > > > >> > > can
> > > > >> > > > > > > contain
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > one or more file chunks.
The tablespace (segment
> > ids,
> > > > >> offsets
> > > > >> > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > etc.)
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > will be stored to our
regular page memory. This is
> > key
> > > > >> ideas
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > implement
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > first version of such
storage. We already have
> > > similiar
> > > > >> > > > components
> > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > > our
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > persistence, so this
experience can be reused to
> > > develop
> > > > >> such
> > > > >> > > > > > storage.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Nothing significant should
be changed at our
> memory
> > > > >> level. It
> > > > >> > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > separate, pluggable component
over cache. Most of
> > the
> > > > >> > functions
> > > > >> > > > > which
> > > > >> > > > > > > > give
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > performance boost can
be delegated to OS level
> > (Memory
> > > > >> mapped
> > > > >> > > > > files,
> > > > >> > > > > > > DMA,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Direct write from Socket
to disk and vice versa).
> > > Ignite
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > File
> > > > >> > > > > > > Storage
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > can develop independetly
of each other.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Alexey Stelmak, which
has a great experience with
> > > > >> developing
> > > > >> > > such
> > > > >> > > > > > > systems
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > can provide more low
level information about how
> it
> > > > should
> > > > >> > > look.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > сб, 30 июн. 2018
г. в 19:40, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > >> > > > > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > > > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Pavel, it definitely
makes sense. Do you have a
> > > design
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> > > mind?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > D.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 30,
2018, 07:24 Pavel Kovalenko <
> > > > >> > > > jokserfn@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I would like
to start a discussion about
> > > designing a
> > > > >> new
> > > > >> > > > > feature
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > because
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > think it's
time to start making steps towards
> > it.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I noticed,
that some of our users have tried
> to
> > > > store
> > > > >> > large
> > > > >> > > > > > > > homogenous
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > entries (>
1, 10, 100 Mb/Gb/Tb) to our caches,
> > but
> > > > >> > without
> > > > >> > > > big
> > > > >> > > > > > > > success.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > IGFS project
has the possibility to do it, but
> > as
> > > > for
> > > > >> me
> > > > >> > it
> > > > >> > > > has
> > > > >> > > > > > one
> > > > >> > > > > > > > big
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > disadvantage
- it's in-memory only, so users
> > have
> > > a
> > > > >> > strict
> > > > >> > > > size
> > > > >> > > > > > > limit
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > their data
and have data loss problem.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Our durable
memory has a possibility to
> persist
> > a
> > > > data
> > > > >> > that
> > > > >> > > > > > doesn't
> > > > >> > > > > > > > fit
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > RAM to disk,
but page structure of it is not
> > > > supposed
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > store
> > > > >> > > > > > > large
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > pieces
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > of data.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > There are a
lot of projects of distributed
> file
> > > > >> systems
> > > > >> > > like
> > > > >> > > > > > HDFS,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > GlusterFS,
etc. But all of them concentrate to
> > > > >> implement
> > > > >> > > > > > high-grade
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > file
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > protocol, rather
than user-friendly API which
> > > leads
> > > > to
> > > > >> > high
> > > > >> > > > > entry
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > threshold
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to start implementing
something over it.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't
go in this way. Our main goal
> > should
> > > be
> > > > >> > > > providing
> > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > user
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > and fast way
to use file storage and
> processing
> > > here
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > now.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > If take HDFS
as closest possible by
> > functionality
> > > > >> > project,
> > > > >> > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > > > one
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > big
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > advantage against
it. We can use our caches as
> > > files
> > > > >> > > metadata
> > > > >> > > > > > > storage
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > have the infinite
possibility to scale it,
> while
> > > > HDFS
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> > > > > bounded
> > > > >> > > > > > by
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Namenode capacity
and has big problems with
> > > keeping
> > > > a
> > > > >> > large
> > > > >> > > > > > number
> > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > files
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > in the system.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We achieved
very good experience with
> > persistence
> > > > >> when we
> > > > >> > > > > > developed
> > > > >> > > > > > > > our
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > durable memory,
and we can couple together it
> > and
> > > > >> > > experience
> > > > >> > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > services,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > binary protocol,
I/O and start to design a new
> > > IEP.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Use cases and
features of the project:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 1) Storing
XML, JSON, BLOB, CLOB, images,
> > videos,
> > > > >> text,
> > > > >> > etc
> > > > >> > > > > > without
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > overhead and
data loss possibility.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 2) Easy, pluggable,
fast and distributed file
> > > > >> processing,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > transformation
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > and analysis.
(E.g. ImageMagick processor for
> > > images
> > > > >> > > > > > > transformation,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > LuceneIndex
for texts, whatever, it's bounded
> > only
> > > > by
> > > > >> > your
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > imagination).
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 3) Scalability
out of the box.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 4) User-friendly
API and minimal steps to
> start
> > > > using
> > > > >> > this
> > > > >> > > > > > storage
> > > > >> > > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > production.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I repeated
again, this project is not supposed
> > to
> > > > be a
> > > > >> > > > > high-grade
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > distributed
file system with full file
> protocol
> > > > >> support.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > This project
should primarily focus on target
> > > users,
> > > > >> > which
> > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > > like
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > use it without
complex preparation.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > As for example,
a user can deploy Ignite with
> > such
> > > > >> > storage
> > > > >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > web-server
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > with REST API
as Ignite service and get
> > scalable,
> > > > >> > > performant
> > > > >> > > > > > image
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > server
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > out of the
box which can be accessed using any
> > > > >> > programming
> > > > >> > > > > > > language.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > As a far target
goal, we should focus on
> storing
> > > and
> > > > >> > > > > processing a
> > > > >> > > > > > > > very
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > large amount
of the data like movies,
> streaming,
> > > > >> which is
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > big
> > > > >> > > > > > > > trend
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > today.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I would like
to say special thanks to our
> > > community
> > > > >> > members
> > > > >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Stelmak
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > and Dmitriy
Govorukhin which significantly
> > helped
> > > me
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > put
> > > > >> > > > > > > together
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > pieces of that
puzzle.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > So, I want
to hear your opinions about this
> > > > proposal.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > --
> > > > >> > > > Sergey Kozlov
> > > > >> > > > GridGain Systems
> > > > >> > > > www.gridgain.com
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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