I would say most banks are hbase but there r a few with accumulo. I have most bank, broker dealers and regulators in my region. Also I think we r talking about the same foreign bank ;)
Ted Malaska On Aug 19, 2015 7:15 PM, "Jerry He" <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, folks > > Thanks so much for all the responses and comments. > > We don't have or support Accumulo yet We support HBase. There have been > requests for Accumulo. Like Ted said, almost all from Federal sector and > Banks (even foreign banks). > They seem to have References or reference implementations for their use > cases. My work of persuasion for HBase has not been very successful. > > I had looked into the HBase cell security. There are maybe some differences > and misses like Sean mentioned. I think overall the visibility coverage > plus the ACL are great. > > Technology aside, Accumulo's reputation in the specific areas it is good at > is probably there. > > It will probably be slow evolving process ... > > Jerry > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Ted Malaska <ted.mala...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > I'm on the side of benchmarking for the use case and with an expert. > There > > a so many ways to cheat a benchmark. And the bench mark may not be > > anything like your use case. > > On Aug 19, 2015 5:43 PM, "Andrew Purtell" <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > I think someone who uses third party benchmarks to assess a system like > > > HBase or Accumulo (or Cassandra...) is taking a foolish shortcut, so > > > perhaps we must agree to disagree. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Jeremy Kepner <kep...@ll.mit.edu> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I agree, that performance on real apps is the most important for > > > > any particular organization, but as technologists how do we measure > > > > ourselves? > > > > Hence imperfect benchmarking remains our only recourse. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:34:44PM -0700, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > > > > I can't speak for anyone other than myself in the HBase community, > > but > > > > I'm > > > > > much more interested and focused on performance analysis and > > > > > developing/deploying for the use cases of my employer than > > > participating > > > > in > > > > > generic bench-marketing to make weapons for happy OSS warriors. > > Perhaps > > > > > this does a disservice to the HBase project overall and if so then > I > > > > > apologize to others on the project for that. > > > > > > > > > > That said, from long and bitter experience let me state the only > > > > benchmarks > > > > > that every really matter are the comparative benchmarks you make > for > > > your > > > > > own use cases in your own environments, preferably exercising those > > > > > candidates with real data and operating conditions. See: > > > > > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMnTyKVUEAA1tOm.jpg (smile) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Alright, I have to ask... are you referring to the paper that > cites > > > > > > Accumulo performance without write-ahead logs enabled? I have > some > > > > serious > > > > > > reservations about the relevance of that paper to this > conversation > > > and > > > > > > just want to make sure people aren't led astray by what the > actual > > > > takeaway > > > > > > should be. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeremy Kepner wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> A big difference between Accumulo and HBase is the published > > > > performance > > > > > >> numbers. > > > > > >> The Accumulo community has done a good job of continuing to > > publish > > > > > >> up-to-date performance > > > > > >> numbers in peer-reviewed venues which allow Accumulo to claim > best > > > in > > > > the > > > > > >> world performance. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The HBase community hasn't been doing that so much. It would be > > > > great if > > > > > >> they did because > > > > > >> the HBase points on the graphs are old and it would be good to > get > > > new > > > > > >> ones. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 02:30:58PM -0400, Josh Elser wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> Like I've said many times now, it's relative to your actual > > > problem. > > > > > >>> If you don't have that much data (or intend to grow into that > > much > > > > > >>> data), it's not an issue. Obviously, this is the case for you. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> However, it is an architectural difference between the two > > projects > > > > > >>> with known limitations for a single metadata region. It's a > > > > > >>> difference as what was asked for by Jerry. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Ted Malaska wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> I've been doing HBase for a long time and never had an issue > > with > > > > region > > > > > >>>> count limits and I have clusters with 10s of billions of > > records. > > > > Many > > > > > >>>> there would be issues around a couple Trillion records, but > > never > > > > got > > > > > >>>> that > > > > > >>>> high yet. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Ted Malaska > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Josh Elser< > > josh.el...@gmail.com> > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Oh, one other thing that I should mention (was prompted > > off-list). > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> (definition time since cross-list now: HBase regions == > > Accumulo > > > > > >>>>> tablets) > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Accumulo will handle many more regions than HBase does now > due > > > to a > > > > > >>>>> splittable metadata table. While I was told this was a very > > long > > > > and > > > > > >>>>> arduous journey to implement correctly (WRT splitting, merges > > and > > > > bulk > > > > > >>>>> loading), users with "too many regions" problems are > extremely > > > few > > > > and > > > > > >>>>> far > > > > > >>>>> between for Accumulo. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> I was very happy to see effort/design being put into this in > > > HBase. > > > > > >>>>> And, > > > > > >>>>> just to be fair in criticism/praises, HBase does appear to me > > to > > > do > > > > > >>>>> assignments of regions much faster than Accumulo does on a > > small > > > > > >>>>> cluster > > > > > >>>>> (~5-10 nodes). Accumulo may take a few seconds to notice and > > > > reassign > > > > > >>>>> tablets. I have yet to notice this with HBase (which also > could > > > be > > > > due > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > >>>>> lack of personal testing). > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Jerry He wrote: > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Hi, folks > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> We have people that are evaluating HBase vs Accumulo. > > > > > >>>>>> Security is an important factor. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> But I think after the Cell security was added in HBase, > there > > is > > > > no > > > > > >>>>>> more > > > > > >>>>>> real gap compared to Accumulo. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> I know we have both HBase and Accumulo experts on this list. > > > > > >>>>>> Could someone shred more light? > > > > > >>>>>> I am looking for real gap comparing HBase to Accumulo if > there > > > is > > > > any > > > > > >>>>>> so > > > > > >>>>>> that I can be prepared to address them. This is not limited > to > > > the > > > > > >>>>>> security > > > > > >>>>>> area. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> There are differences in some features and implementations. > > But > > > > they > > > > > >>>>>> don't > > > > > >>>>>> see like real 'gaps'. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Any comments and feedbacks are welcome. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Jerry > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > > > Hein > > > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > >
