kudu-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benjamin Kim <bbuil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Kudu on top of Alluxio
Date Sat, 25 Mar 2017 22:43:05 GMT
Mike,

Thanks for the informative answer. I asked this question because I saw that Alluxio can be
used to handle storage for HBase. Plus, we could keep our cluster size to a minimum and not
need to add more nodes based on storage capacity. We would only need to size our clusters
based on load (cores, memory, bandwidth) instead.

Cheers,
Ben


> On Mar 25, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Mike Percy <mpercy@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Kudu currently relies on local storage on a POSIX file system. Right now there is no
support for S3, which would be interesting but is non-trivial in certain ways (particularly
if we wanted to rely on S3's replication and disable Kudu's app-level replication).
> 
> I would suggest using only either EXT4 or XFS file systems for production deployments
as of Kudu 1.3, in a JBOD configuration, with one SSD per machine for the WAL and with the
data disks on either SATA or SSD drives depending on the workload. Anything else is untested
AFAIK.
> 
> As for Alluxio, I haven't heard of people using it for permanent storage and since Kudu
has its own block cache I don't think it would really help with caching. Also I don't recall
Tachyon providing POSIX semantics.
> 
> Mike
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Mar 25, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Benjamin Kim <bbuild11@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Does anyone know of a way to use AWS S3 or 
> 


Mime
View raw message