Hi Deepak, Your assumption that folks would write bad algorithms because a platform is efficient is wrong and misguided. Wrong algorithm on efficient platform would bite you.
From: Deepak Goel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:47 PM To: Dejan Menges <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "J. Rottinghuis" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Arun Natva <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, user <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: Reliability of Hadoop My thoughts inline (Sorry for my poor english earlier, I will try to explain what I mean again) On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Dejan Menges <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Deepak, Hadoop is just platform (Hadoop and all around it). Toolset to do what you want to do. If you are writing bad code you can't blame programming language. It's you not being able to write good code. There's also nothing bad in using commodity hardware (and not sure I understand whats' commodity software). In this very moment, while we are exchanging this - how much do we know or care on which hardware mail servers are running? We don't, neither we care. **********************Deepak********************** I am not saying Hadoop is bad at all. Infact I am saying it is wonderful. However the algorithms written in the past decades in (OS, JVM, our applications) are perhaps not the best in terms of performance. Infact they are governed by "Inverse Moore's law" which is something like "The quality of software in terms of performance reduces by half every year". Now with coming of Hadoop, the algorithms are run in parallel on many small computers, and they don't have to be inefficient at all. So in all likelihood, the quality of our algorithms in OS, JVM, application (not Hadoop!) will decrease further. As we are all from the software industry, we must guard ourselves against this pitfall. As to your question, whether we care about the hardware mail servers? Well it is subjective and person dependent. From my perspective I do care (and I might be writing this to satisfy my ego!). For example, I do keep thinking on what servers do our software run on. Which CPU? What is the technology inside the CPU? How much heat is the CPU generating? How smaller and faster the CPU can get? And so on... ********************** Deepak********************** For whitepapers and use cases internet is full of them. **********************Deepak********************** I tried googling (Assuming Google is good at its job of finding what I need) and could not find any whitepapers on the "cost v/s performance benefit between the two technology". Can you please provide a link if you have? **********************Deepak********************** My company is keeping majority of the really important data in Hadoop ecosystem. Some of the best software developers I met so far are writing different types of code from it, from analytics to development of in house software and plugins for different things. **********************Deepak********************** I will draw inspiration from your example above and improve my software skills (Actually I am almost fresh at software development and am starting from scratch). Thank You. Appreciate it. :) **********************Deepak********************** However, I'm not sure that anyone on any mailing list can give you answers than you need. I would start with official documentation and understanding how specific component works in depth and why it works the way it works. My 2c Cheers, Dejan On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 9:41 PM Deepak Goel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Sorry once again if I am wrong, or my comments are without significance I am not saying Hadoop is bad or good...It is just that Hadoop might be indirectly encouraging commodity hardware and software to be developed which is convenient but might not be very good (also the cost factor is unproven with no proper case studies or whitepaper) It is like the fast food industry, which is very convenient (a commodity) but causing obesity all over the world (And hence also causing many illness, poor health, social trauma therefore the cost of a burger to anyone is actually far more than what a company charges when you eat it) In effect what Hadoop (and all the other commercial software around it) is saying that its ok if you have bad software (Application, JVM, OS), I will provide another software which will hide all the problems of yours... We might all just go the obesity way in the software industry too Hey Namaskara~Nalama~Guten Tag~Bonjour -- Keigu Deepak 73500 12833 www.simtree.net<http://www.simtree.net>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/deicool<http://www.linkedin.com/in/deicool> Skype: thumsupdeicool Google talk: deicool Blog: http://loveandfearless.wordpress.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/deicool "Contribute to the world, environment and more : http://www.gridrepublic.org " On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:51 AM, J. Rottinghuis <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: We run several clusters of thousands of nodes (as do many companies), our largest one has over 10K nodes. Disks, machines, memory, and network fail all the time. The larger the scale, the higher the odds that some machine is bad in a given day. On the other hand, scale helps. If a single node our of 10K fails, 9,999 others participate in re-distributing state. Even a rack failure isn't a big deal most of the time (plus typically a rack fails due to a TOR issue, so the data is offline, but typically not lost permanently). Hadoop is designed to deal with this, and by-and-large it does. Critical components (such as Namenodes) can be configured to run in an HA pair with automatic failover. There is quite a bit of work going on by many in the Hadoop community to keep pushing the boundaries of scale. A node or a rack failing in a large cluster actually has less impact than at smaller scale. With a 5-node cluster, if 1 machine crashes you've taken 20% capacity (disk and compute) offline. 1 out of 1K barely registers. Ditto with a 3 rack cluster. Loose a rack and 1/3rd of your capacity is offline. It is large-scale coordinated failure you should worry about. Think several rows of racks coming offline due to power failure, a DC going offline due to fire in the building etc. Those are hard to deal with in software within a single DC. They should also be more rare, but as many companies have experienced, large scale coordinated failures do occasionally happen. As to your question in the other email thread, it is a well-established pattern that scaling horizontally with commodity hardware (and letting software such as Hadoop deal with failures) help with both scale and reducing cost. Cheers, Joep On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Arun Natva <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Deepak, I have managed clusters where worker nodes crashed, disks failed.. HDFS takes care of the data replication unless you loose too many of the nodes where there is not enough space to fit the replicas. Sent from my iPhone On May 27, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Deepak Goel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hey Namaskara~Nalama~Guten Tag~Bonjour We are yet to see any server go down in our cluster nodes in the production environment? Has anyone seen reliability problems in their production environment? How many times? Thanks Deepak -- Keigu Deepak 73500 12833 www.simtree.net<http://www.simtree.net>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/deicool<http://www.linkedin.com/in/deicool> Skype: thumsupdeicool Google talk: deicool Blog: http://loveandfearless.wordpress.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/deicool "Contribute to the world, environment and more : http://www.gridrepublic.org "
