Simple, I want to see what is meant by the claim that HBase = Big Table. How far does this claim go?
How identical are the two products? Does it stop at the fronted specifications? Does it go into the internals? I just want to know how identical these two products are and how different are the two. If I took the current build of HBase and had a time machine and installed it in all those circa 2003 Google servers (and not one server more), would I end up with something similar to what Google had back then? Is there anyone in this mailing list who has any experience w/ BigTable (older versions)? On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: > This is a hypothetical question. Why do you care? > Can you run current Windows on '03 machines? Or Linux (with KDE/Gnome)? > > HBase is designed for modern machines. > > > > ________________________________ > From: D S <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, March 5, 2012 11:39 AM > Subject: Re: HBase & BigTable + History: Can it run decently on a 512MB > machine? What's the difference between the two? > > On 3/5/12, Michael Drzal <[email protected]> wrote: > > You really need to consider the entire historical context here. A lot of > > the memory used in hbase is buffering writes to disk and for the block > > cache. These days, it isn't unreasonable to get 12 2-3TB disks in a > > commodity server. Back in 2003, you would not get as many disks, and > they > > would be much smaller. One way to think about it is the ratio of > RAM/disk > > space or more operationally what your cache hit ratio is and how busy > your > > disk drives are. > > > > Drz > > > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:25 AM, D S <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm learning more about HBase and I'm curious how much of HBase is > >> actually based on Google's original dB. In Google's origins stories, > >> they are well known for using low cost commodity hardware in scale in > >> order to store their web database. > >> > >> Almost every blog I read about HBase tells me it's a clone of > >> BigTable. Almost every blog I've read about HBase also tells me to > >> use a lot of RAM - gigabytes worth. Some even tell me not to even > >> consider HBase with less than 4GB of RAM. > >> > >> If I remember my history correctly, a commodity machine in the year > >> 2003 had around 512MB to 1GB of RAM in it. The fancier ones had, 2GB. > >> From everything I've read, running HBase on such machines is a very > >> bad idea yet this was the machines readily available in the year 2003 > >> when Google started it's growth. > >> > >> I'm confused at the moment. Can someone give me a bit of background > >> about how HBase performance is handled from the "low" end which was > >> considered "high" end back then? Should I assume that HBase is just a > >> clone of BigTable? What is HBase's history? Are the blogs wrong? > >> > >> Thanks for any clarification anyone can give. > >> > > > > Is HBase's configuration options robust enough that it could go back > and run well on those 2003 specs by a bit of tweaking if that what was > desired? >
