2011/11/25 Thomas Jungblut <[email protected]> > Hey all, > > I'm sure you already know this paper [1], but I wanted to discuss it a bit. > > Besides that the "relaxed synchronization" looks quite cool and the newly > introduced "commit" method, I have seen the put and get operators. > It seems to be very useful that we provide some kind of distributed cache > which is storing the user data. I call it cache, because we can implement > some kind of swapping logic if the data is too large to fit in RAM. > The user can now get stuff from other machines or put it. > > I know that this is widely used in enterprise solutions, e.G. EHCache by > terracotta. > I totally think that Apache DirectMemory could be useful for it. Sadly I > don't know if it is distributed nor that they provide some kind of > swapping. > > So first off all, what do you think about the paper? >
I didn't know it but I'll read it and share my thoughts. > What do you think about the caching idea? > And what do you think about using another framework for this, instead of > implementing our own? > I am a committer in DirectMemory and it'd be happy to support integration between Hama and DM. The distributed cache is being discussed but not provided yet but it's sure in its roadmap. Tommaso > [1] > > http://people.apache.org/~tjungblut/Efficient%20Barrier%20Synchronization%20Mechanism.pdf > > -- > Thomas Jungblut > Berlin <[email protected]> >
