+1 sounds great. Anastasis On 18 Νοε 2013, at 9:01 π.μ., Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 sounds good to me. > Tommaso > > > 2013/11/18 Edward J. Yoon <[email protected]> > >>> I would like to suggest that we solve the messaging scalability issue. >> WDYT? >> >> The Spilling Queue seems works fine on my cluster. So, if we finish >> the below tasks, I think, Hama will be very "Competitive" in terms of >> the performance and scalability of the both (pure) BSP and Graph >> computing engine. >> >> HAMA-734 Hama Message Manager should be able to delegate the ownership >> of internal message queue on request for future superstep. >> HAMA-723 Implement sorting in Spilling queue. >> HAMA-816 Add the getMsgIterators method for efficient message looping. >> HAMA-783 Efficient InMemory Storage for Vertices. >> >> If no objection, i would like to arrange the JIRA tasks for 0.7.0, >> based on this. WDYT? >> >> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Chia-Hung Lin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> That looks fine to me. In addition to this, if that task is >>> accomplished, are we planning to release a new version (e.g. a minor >>> version plus 1)? Just to check as it seems that we have demands on >>> frequent releases so that users who need some specific patches can use >>> it earlier. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3 September 2013 09:45, Edward J. Yoon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> According to Suraj's dependency diagram, asynchronous messaging is >>>> most important and highest priority for us at the moment. How about we >>>> focus on this one? (Of course, some committers can dedicated on doing >>>> GPU, ML algorithms, or Interface Refactoring issues, regardless of >>>> *core* roadmap). >>>> >>>> If we agree with this plan, I think we can separate the async >>>> messaging into smaller sub-tasks: >>>> >>>> * Decision of whether we will use existing open source, or not. >>>> * Design the asynchronous messaging interface (maybe (spilling) >>>> message queue also should be considered together?). >>>> * Implementation of asynchronous messaging functions, such as send or >> flush. >>>> * Evaluation and adopt asynchronous messaging as a default messenger >> system. >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Chia-Hung Lin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> BTW, are we going to prioritize tasks in roadmap? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 28 August 2013 14:17, Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>>> sure, it looks reasonable to me. >>>>>> Tommaso >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2013/8/28 Edward J. Yoon <[email protected]> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After we release the 0.6.3 (HDFS 2.0 version), we have to work for >> 0.7.0 >>>>>>> version now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to suggest that we solve the messaging scalability >> issue. >>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, according to my experiments, BSP framework shows very nice >> performance >>>>>>> (I tested also GraphLab and Spark). Only Graph job is slow. So, I'll >> mainly >>>>>>> work on improving the performance of GraphJobRunner. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon >>>>>>> @eddieyoon >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon >>>> @eddieyoon >> >> >> >> -- >> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon >> @eddieyoon >>
