"Why would you want to do that?"

As a potential user of Myriad, in the enterprise I see a number of reasons
I'd "want to do that" they are:

- The ability to use Mesos' purpose built and well design resource
management with Map Reduce. Right now Yarn is is the only option to run Map
Reduce V2 Applications, and while Yarn is far superior to Resource
Management in Map Reduce V1, we have still have an important application
that is intrinsically tied to the resource schedule. Things that run on
resource schedulers should not be tied to them. Map Reduce V2 should not
have a specific resource scheduler as a requirement.

- Multi Tenancy: Right now if you have a cluster of computers, you can run
one Yarn cluster on them.  With Myriad, the option exists to have smaller
clusters, that are purpose built running on one set of harder, think a Yarn
cluster for marketing, or one for HR.  This is great option for better
utilizing your resources, as well as better scaling growth and costs
associated with growth. Consider setting up separate clusters in Yarn
without Mesos: Many services duplicated, VMs or Physical node management
issues, etc.

- To build on Multi Tenancy, consider different version of Yarn and Map
Reduce. Right now, a new feature or bug fix comes out in a version of Yarn,
and there is not a good way to put that into play with your data. You have
to go through horrible testing process just to upgrade, and you have to
make sure ALL other jobs are not affected by the upgrade. With Myriad, keep
your production jobs at version X of yarn, and then spin up a new Yarn
cluster at version x+1.  Now you can test your jobs slowly, and migrated
them one by one without impact to production processes.  Upgrading is now
not all or nothing, but a controlled process where you can "fail fast" i.e.
if the job doesn't work, roll it back to the older version of Yarn.

- The ability to have applications (think Docker containers) sitting right
next to the data (Hadoop data) they may be interacting with. Monitoring all
the jobs in one place rather than distinct clusters for containers and
others for data frameworks.

- Data frameworks!!  Like the multi-tenancy conversation, what happens when
you want to have Drill or Impala, plus Map Reduce V2 (multiple of these),
plus Spark, or Storm, or Kafka all working together.  With Yarn now, you
it's much more locked in to a monolithic cluster, still with static
partitioning all over the place (think a Cloudera cluster with Yarn, Impala
and Hive... want to change something? You have to make sure all the pieces
change together)  With Mesos/Myriad, you have the flexibility to move and
try new things, with minimal impact to your production, without standing up
addition servers/clusters.  Myriad is the missing link here in that YARN
only applications (Map ReduceV2!!!) are now part of that vision for a
unified data center, you no longer have to make a choice between Myriad or
Yarn, now it's Myriad AND Yarn.

Those are the points that get me excited, ecosystem lock in a huge concern
for many enterprises.   I don't want to imply I am not excited about the
dynamic flexup/flexdown or the HA components, obviously those are awesome
too, but for me those are cherries on top to the other components that let
me envision a data environment where options exist everywhere, where
innovation can happen faster, and I never have a situation where an idea is
left on the cutting room floor because We don't support X.

Random thoughts from me...

John



On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Jim Klucar <[email protected]> wrote:

> Awesome. I assume it was good talk? I need to get better at answering the
> "Why would you want to do that?" question.
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Ken Sipe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I just gave a talk at the cassandra summit.  It included details around
> > spark and analytics with cassandra in the cluster.  There were lots of
> > questions, etc.   I just wanted to let this group know that the 2nd
> largest
> > topic of conversation and questions was around myriad… there was a lot of
> > excitement for our project.
> >
> > Ken
>

Reply via email to