I really have no idea how one can estimate telco traffic. But I highly doubt that you can fruitfully compare reliability of internal-only protocol (same implementation, easy to enforce compatibility) to an interoperable one.
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:41 AM, Ryan Rawson <[email protected]> wrote: > I didn't say I was the one making the argument... > > Google has put probably > 10^24 bytes of data thru protobuf in > multiple implementations (eg: serialization on disk and on wire RPC). > That is a low estimate. > > I'd be interested in hearing what 20 years of telco protocol traffic > might compare to 10 years of google's usage of protobuf. Exponential > curve and all of that. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Constantine Peresypkin > <[email protected]> wrote: > > More battle tested than more than 20 year old standard used almost in > every > > telecom protocol that exists nowdays? > > I think your statement is a little on "too bold" side. :) > > > > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Ryan Rawson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Funny thing, given how much use protobufs has been put thru, I think > >> one could make the argument its more battle tested than ASN.1 ... > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Constantine Peresypkin > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Protobuf is an attempt to make ASN.1 more developer friendly (not a > bad > >> > attempt). > >> > It's simpler, has much less features, easier to implement and has a > >> compact > >> > encoding. > >> > But on other hand it's non-standard, "reinvented wheel" they could > just > >> do > >> > a "better than PER" encoding for ASN.1, and AFAIK has no support for > the > >> > new and shiny Google encodings, like "group varint". > >> > All in all in current situation it seems a better choice than ASN.1, > not > >> > even arguing about something even more vague and non-standard as > Thrift. > >> > > >> > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Ryan Rawson <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Thanks for that Ted. > >> >> > >> >> Correct - internal wire format doesnt mean 'drill only supports > >> >> protobuf encoded data'. > >> >> > >> >> Part of the reason to favor protobuf is that a lot of people in the > >> >> broader 'big data' community are building a lot of experience with > it. > >> >> Hadoop and HBase both are moving to/moved to protobuf on the wire. > >> >> Being able to leverage this expertise is valuable. > >> >> > >> >> There is a JIRA in Hadoop-land where someone had done a deep dive > >> >> 'bake off' between thrift, protobuf and avro. The ultimate choice > was > >> >> protobuf for a number of reasons. If people want to re-do the > >> >> analysis, I'd like to see it in the context of THAT analysis (eg: why > >> >> the assumptions there are not the same for Drill)... if anything it'd > >> >> give a concrete form to what can be a mire. > >> >> > >> >> For what it's worth, I've had many discussion along these angles with > >> >> a variety of people including committers on Thrift, and the consensus > >> >> is both are good choices. > >> >> > >> >> -ryan > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > I think that it is important to ask a few questions leading up a > >> decision > >> >> > here. > >> >> > > >> >> > The first is a (rhetorical) show of hands about how many people > >> believe > >> >> > that there are no serious performance or expressivity killers when > >> >> > comparing alternative serialization frameworks. As far as I know, > >> >> > performance differences are not massive (and protobufs is one of > the > >> >> > leaders in any case) and the expressivity differences are > essentially > >> >> nil. > >> >> > If somebody feels that there is a serious show-stopper with any > >> option, > >> >> > they should speak. > >> >> > > >> >> > The second is to ask the sense of the community whether they judge > >> >> progress > >> >> > or perfection in this decision is most important to the project. > My > >> >> guess > >> >> > is that almost everybody would prefer to see progress as long as > the > >> >> > technical choice is not subject to some horrid missing bit. > >> >> > > >> >> > The final question is whether it is reasonable to go along with > >> protobufs > >> >> > given that several very experienced engineers prefer it and would > >> like to > >> >> > produce code based on it. If the first two answers are answered to > >> the > >> >> > effect of protobufs is about as good as we will find and that > progress > >> >> > trumps small differences, then it seems that moving to follow this > >> >> > preference of Jason and Ryan for protobufs might be a reasonable > >> thing to > >> >> > do. > >> >> > > >> >> > The question of an internal wire format, btw, does not constrain > the > >> >> > project relative to external access. I think it is important to > >> support > >> >> > JDBC and ODBC and whatever is in common use for querying. For > >> external > >> >> > access the question is quite different. Whereas for the internal > >> format > >> >> > consensus around a single choice has large benefits, the external > >> format > >> >> > choice is nearly the opposite. For an external format, limiting > >> >> ourselves > >> >> > to a single choice seems like a bad idea and increasing the > audience > >> >> seems > >> >> > like a better choice. > >> >> > > >> >> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Ryan Rawson <[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Hi folks, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I just commented on this first JIRA. Here is my text: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> This issue has been hashed over a lot in the Hadoop projects. > There > >> >> >> was work done to compare thrift vs avro vs protobuf. The > conclusion > >> >> >> was protobuf was the decision to use. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Prior to this move, there had been a lot of noise about pluggable > RPC > >> >> >> transports, and whatnot. It held up adoption of a backwards > >> compatible > >> >> >> serialization framework for a long time. The problem ended up > being > >> >> >> the analysis-paralysis, rather than the specific implementation > >> >> >> problem. In other words, the problem was a LACK of implementation > >> than > >> >> >> actual REAL problems. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Based on this experience, I'd strongly suggest adopting protobuf > and > >> >> >> moving on. Forget about pluggable RPC implementations, the > complexity > >> >> >> doesnt deliver benefits. The benefits of protobuf is that its the > RPC > >> >> >> format for Hadoop and HBase, which allows Drill to draw on the > broad > >> >> >> experience of those communities who need to implement high > >> performance > >> >> >> backwards compatible RPC serialization. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> ==== > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Expanding a bit, I've looked in to this issue a lot, and there is > >> very > >> >> >> few significant concrete reasons to choose protobuf vs thrift. > Tiny > >> >> >> percent faster of this, and that, etc. I'd strongly suggest > protobuf > >> >> >> for the expanded community. There is no particular Apache > imperative > >> >> >> that Apache projects re-use libraries. Use what makes sense for > your > >> >> >> project. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> As regards to Avro, it's a fine serialization format for long term > >> >> >> data retention, but the complexities that exist to enable that > make > >> it > >> >> >> non-ideal for an RPC. I know of no one who uses AvroRPC in any > form. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> -ryan > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Tomer Shiran < > [email protected]> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > We plan to propose the architecture and interfaces in the next > >> couple > >> >> >> > weeks, which will make it easy to divide the project into clear > >> >> building > >> >> >> > blocks. At that point it will be easier to start contributing > >> >> different > >> >> >> > data sources, data formats, operators, query languages, etc. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > The contributions are done in the usual Apache way. It's best to > >> open > >> >> a > >> >> >> > JIRA and then post a patch so that others can review and then a > >> >> committer > >> >> >> > can check it in. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Chandan Madhesia < > >> >> >> [email protected] > >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> Hi > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Hi > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> What is the process to become a contributor to drill ? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Regards > >> >> >> >> chandan > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Ted Dunning < > >> [email protected]> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Suffice it to say that if *you* think it is important enough > to > >> >> >> implement > >> >> >> >> > and maintain, then the group shouldn't say naye. The > consensus > >> >> stuff > >> >> >> >> > should only block things that break something else. Additive > >> >> features > >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> > are highly maintainable (or which come with commitments) > >> shouldn't > >> >> >> >> > generally be blocked. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Michael Hausenblas < > >> >> >> >> > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > Good. Feel free to put me down for that, if the group as a > >> whole > >> >> >> thinks > >> >> >> >> > > that (supporting Thrift) makes sense. > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > -- > >> >> >> > Tomer Shiran > >> >> >> > Director of Product Management | MapR Technologies | > 650-804-8657 > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >
