Ah great, I subscribed the dev list. I've read the stuff on the mailing list about the distributed cache.
Let's hear some other opinions on it, but I would really love to see this in DirectMemory as well as Hama. 2011/11/25 Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]> > 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]> > > > -- Thomas Jungblut Berlin <[email protected]>
