+1
On 18 November 2013 17:31, Anastasis Andronidis <[email protected]> wrote: > +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 >>> >
