I have been reading into Hadoop and one thing I have read a few times is that Hadoop is good for offline computing. What does that mean "offline computing"?
The terms "online" and "offline" are sometimes used synonymously with the terms "real-time" and "batch" respectively. For example, "online machine learning" refers to learning that occurs continuously as new training data becomes available. By contrast, "offline machine learning" refers to learning from a batch of training data.
Hadoop is good at processing large amounts of data in batches (typically executed on a relatively infrequent basis, e.g. hourly), as opposed to processing data in real-time as it becomes available.
In on-line computing, user will wait for response to his query and expects the response in real-time or near real-time.
In offline computing, user will trigger/schedule an operation at a specific time and does not expect the response in real-time. Once the operation completes, he will check the result after sometime.
offline-computing will be done on huge sets of data, which may take hours to complete job and hence user is not interested in real time response. He will fire & forget the computing operation. He will check the results at his own time.
AFAIK, "offline computing" is exactly what it says. It's a system disconnected from the web (usually for security reasons). But it's also related to dedicated servers that can access local databases, so they don't really need to connect to the web and neither they want to waste any resource.
So I think the document you've read was meaning that Hadoop is great for dedicated servers that need to process long running dedicated calculations, where CPU is a must. In this case, "offline" is usually related to performance, more than security I guess.
Related
I am doing a personal project that consists of creating the full architecture of a data warehouse (DWH). In this case as an ETL and BI analysis tool I decided to use Pentaho; it has a lot of functionality from allowing easy dashboard creation, to full data mining processes and OLAP cubes.
I have read that a data warehouse must be a relational database, and understand this. What I don't understand is how to achieve a near real time, or fully real time DWH. I have read about push and pull strategies but my conclusions are the following:
The choice of DBMS is not important to create real time DWH. I mean that is possible with MySQL, SQL Server, Oracle or any other. As I am doing it as a personal project I choose MySQL.
The key factor is the frequency of the jobs scheduling, and this is task of the scheduler. Is this assumption correct? I mean, the key to create a real time DWH is to establish jobs every second for every ETL process?
If I am wrong can you provide me some help to understand this? And then, which is the way to create a real time DWH? Is the any open source scheduler that allows that? And any not open source scheduler which allows that?
I am very confused because some references say that this is impossible, others that is possible.
Definition
Very interesting question. First of all, it should be defined how "real-time" realtime should be. Realtime really has a very low latency for incoming data but requires good architecture in the sending systems, maybe a event bus or messaging queue and good infrastructure on the receiving end. This usually involves some kind of listener and pushing from the deliviering systems.
Near-realtime would be the next "lower" level. If we say near-realtime would be about 5 minutes delay max, your approach could work as well. So for example here you could pull every minute or so the data. But keep in mind that you need some kind of high-performance check if new data is available and which to get. If this check and the pull would take longer than a minute it would become harder to keep up with the data. Really depends on the volume.
Realtime
As I said before, realtime analytics require at best a messaging queue or a service bus some jobs of yours could connect to and "listen" for new data. If a new data package is pushed into the pipeline, the size of it will probably be very small and it can be processed very fast.
If there is no infrastructure for listeners, you need to go near-realtime.
Near-realtime
This is the part where you have to develop more. You have to make sure to get realtively small data packages which will usually be some kind of delta. This could be done with triggers if you have access to the database. Otherwise you have to pull every once in a while whereas your "once" will probably be very frequent.
This could be done on Linux for example with a simple conjob or on Windows with event planning. Just keep in mind that your loading and processing time shouldn't exceed the time window you have got until the next job is being started.
Database
In the end, when you defined what you want to achieve and have a general idea how to implement delta loading or listeners, you are right - you could take a relational database. If you are interested in performance and are modelling this part as Star Schema, you also could look into Column Based Engines or Column Based Databases like Apache Cassandra.
Scheduling
Also for job scheduling you could start with Linux or Windows standard planning tools. If you code in Java you could use later something like quartz. But this would only be the case for near-realtime. Realtime requires a different architecture as I explained above.
Please bear with me, this is a basic architectural question for my first attempt at a "big data" project, but I believe your answers will be of general interest to anyone who is starting out in this field.
I've googled and read the high-level descriptions of Kafka, Storm, Memcached, MongoDB, etc., but now that I'm ready to dig in to start designing my app, I still need some further insight on how in fact the data should be distributed and shared.
The performance of my app is critical, so one objective is to somehow maximize the locality of the data in the RAM of the machines doing the distributed calculations. I need advice for this part of the design.
If my app had some clear criteria for a priori sharding the data and distributing the calculations (such as geographical regions or company divisions) then the solution would be obvious. But unfortunately my app's data access patterns are dynamic and depend on the results of previous calculations.
My app is an analysis program with distinct stages. In the first stage, all the data is accessed once and a metric is calculated for each data object. In the second stage, a subset of the data objects may be accessed, with the probability of access being proportional to each data object's metric that was calculated in the previous stage. In the final stage, a relatively small subset of data objects will be accessed many times for many calculations.
At all stages, it is required that the calculations be distributed across several servers. The calculations are embarassingly parallel, and each distributed calculation only needs to access a few data objects. It is also required that the number of servers can be specified before the app runs (for example, run on one server, or run on fifty servers).
It seems to me that I need some mechanism that distributes the appropriate data objects to the appropriate compute servers, as opposed to just blindly fetching the data from some database service (whether centralized or distributed). Also, it seems to me that some sort of smart caching system might be appropriate, since the data access pattern depends on the previous calculations and cannot be predicted a priori. But as far as I can tell, Memcached is not such a system because the sharding is determined a priori.
I've read many times that the operating system cache performs better than any monkeying around that we may try. I think the ideal solution is that each compute server's RAM cache somehow captures the data objects' dynamic access patterns, but it's not clear to me how this would work with a NoSQL or Memcached service.
Thanks for bearing with me this far. I realize this is a basic question, but the answer eludes me so far. I can't resolve the dynamic access patterns of my app with the a priori sharding of the NoSQL/Memcached packages. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
I recommend you to take a look at http://tarantool.org. Shard to maximize locality for the most common data access pattern, use Lua for local computations, and net.box to issue a remote RPC when calculation needs to continue on another node. All data is stored in RAM, if you write your computation code carefully it could take advantage of the Just In Time compiler.
there are many files need to process with two computers real-timely,I want to distribute them to the two computers and these tasks need to be completed as soon as possibile(means real-time processing),I am thinking about the below plan:
(1) distributed queue like Gearman
(2）distributed computing platform like hadoop/spark/storm/s4 and so on
I have two questions
（1）what is the advantage and disadvantage between (1) and (2)?
（2) How to choose in (2),hadoop?spark?storm?s4?or other?
thanks!
Maybe I have not described the question clearly. In most case,there are 1000-3000 files with the same format , these files are independent,you do not need to care their order,the size of one file maybe tens to hundreds of KB and in the future, the number of files and size of single file will rise. I have wrote a program , it can process the file and pick up the data and then store the data in mongodb. Now there are only two computers, I just want a solution that can process these files with the program quickly（as soon as possibile） and is easy to extend and maintain
distributed queue is easy to use in my case bur maybe hard to extend and maintain , hadoop/spark is to "big" in the two computers but easy to extend and maintain, which is better, i am confused.
It depends a lot on the nature of your "processing". Some dimensions that apply here are:
Are records independent from each other or you need some form of aggregation? i.e: do you need some pieces of data to go together? Say, all transactions from a single user account.
Is you processing CPU bound? Memory bound? FileSystem bound?
What will be persisted? How will you persist it?
Whenever you see new data, do you need to recompute any of the old?
Can you discard data?
Is the data somewhat ordered?
What is the expected load?
A good solution will depend on answers to these (and possibly others I'm forgetting). For instance:
If computation is simple but storage and retrieval is the main concern, you should maybe look into a distributed DB rather than either of your choices.
It could be that you are best served by just logging things into a distributed filesystem like HDFS and then run batch computations with Spark (should be generally better than plain hadoop).
Maybe not, and you can use Spark Streaming to process as you receive the data.
If order and consistency are important, you might be better served by a publish/subscribe architecture, especially if your load could be more than what your two servers can handle, but there are peak and slow hours where your workers can catch up.
etc. So the answer to "how you choose?" is "by carefully looking at the constraints of your particular problem, estimate the load demands to your system and picking the solution that better matches those". All of these solutions and frameworks dominate the others, that's why they are all alive and kicking. The choice is all in the tradeoffs you are willing/able to make.
Hope it helps.
First of all, dannyhow is right - this is not what real-time processing is about. There is a great book http://www.manning.com/marz/ which says a lot about lambda archtecture.
The two ways you mentioned serves completly different purposes and are connected to the definition of word "task". For example, Spark will take a whole job you got for him and divide it into "tasks", but the outcome of one task is useless for you, you still need to wait for whole job to finish. You can create small jobs working on the same dataset and use spark's caching to speed it up. But then you won't get much advantage from distribution (if they have to be run one after another).
Are the files big? Are there connected somehow to each other? If yes, I'd go with Spark. If no, distributed queue.
I am a software developer but wannabe architect new to the server scalability world.
In the context of multiple services working with the same data set, aiming to scale for redundancies and load balancing.
The question is: In a idealistic system, should services try to optimize their internal processing to reduce the amount of queries done to the remote server cache for better performance and less bandwidth at the cost of some local memory and code base or is it better to just go all-in and query the remote cache as the single transaction point every time any transaction need processing done on the data?
When I read about Redis and even general database usage online, the later seems to be the common option. Every nodes of the scaled application have no memory and read and write directly to the remote cache on every transactions.
But as a developer, I ask if this isn't a tremendous waste of resources? Whether you are designing at electronic chips level, at inter-thread, inter-process or inter-machine, I do believe it's the responsibility of each sub-system to do whatever it can to optimize its processing without depending on the external world if it can and hence reduce overall operation time.
I mean, if the same data is read over hundreds or time from the same service without changes (write), isn't it just more logical to keep a local cache and wait for notifications of changes (pub/sub) and only read only these changes to update the cache instead reading the bigger portion of data every time a transaction require it? On the other hand, I understand that this method implies that the same data will be duplicated at multiple place (more ram usage) and require some sort of expiration system not to keep the cache from filling up.
I know Redis is built to be fast. But however fast it is, in my opinion there's still a massive difference between reading directly from local memory versus querying an external service, transfer data over network, allocating memory, deserialize into proper objects and garbage collect it when you are finished with it. Anyone have benchmark numbers between in-process dictionaries query versus a Redis query on the localhost? Is it a negligible time in the bigger scheme of things or is it an important factor?
Now, I believe the real answer to my question until now is "it depends on your usage scenario", so let's elaborate:
Some of our services trigger actions on conditions of data change, others periodically crunch data, others periodically read new data from external network source and finally others are responsible to present data to users and let them trigger some actions and bring in new data. So it's a bit more complex than a single web pages deserving service. We already have a cache system codebase in most services, and we have a message broker system to notify data changes and trigger actions. Currently only one service of each type exist (not scaled). They transfer small volatile data over messages and bigger more persistent (changing less often) data over SQL. We are in process of moving pretty much all data to Redis to ease scalability and performances. Now some colleagues are having a heated discussion about whether we should abandon the cache system altogether and use Redis as the common global cache, or keep our notification/refresh system. We were wondering what the external world think about it. Thanks
(damn that's a lot of text)
I would favor utilizing in-process memory as much as possible. Any remote query introduces latency. You can use a hybrid approach and utilize in-process cache for speed (and it is MUCH faster) but put a significantly shorter TTL on it, and then once expired, reach further back to Redis.
For a business use case where we have to deal with minimum "2-3 terabyte" of data per day, I was doing analysis on "Hadoop & Storm".
Needless to say that “Storm” looks impressive because of its efficiency in processing incoming big data but I am not sure whether “Storm” will be capable enough to process “Terabyte” of data and at the same time providing me real-time results or not ?
Can anyone explain please?
Thanks,
Gajendra
Storm was developed by twitter. they process more than 8 TB per day with it. Sounds like this should be enough for your case. Afaik storm is the best streaming/realtime system for distributed computing. hadoop is not suitable for it due to job start up times and not native handling of streaming data.
a fact is, both can handle the data per day you wish when you have enough server power and storage etc.