Use case is: I need to copy all my data from a HDFS cluster to another cluster with the same set up of masters and slaves and I will release the previous cluster and start running my jobs in the new cluster.
I have read about Apache Falcon and Wandisco non-stop Hadoop which helps in this mirroring. But I'm not sure of other advantages they offer when I have them as part of my eco system (which will be more advantageous? - It will depend on my use case but I want to know if there are any in particular). Can an analogy of Falcon vs Wandisco be provided, depending on your experience with them?
(Disclaimer: I work at WANdisco.)
My view is that the products are complementary. Falcon does a lot of things besides data transfer, like setting up data workflow stages. WANdisco's products do active-active data replication (which means that data can be used equivalently from both the source and target clusters).
In your use case, if you use Falcon then you're actually using DistCP to copy data to your new cluster. You might do an initial transfer to get the bulk of the data over, and then at some point you need to do a final cutover to pick up all the deltas, and then you can let applications run on the new cluster.
If you did the data transfer with WANdisco's products, you could use both clusters at the same time as the replication engine coordinates the changes using a Paxos algorithm. That might make an incremental migration easier.
Other scenarios where you'll notice a difference between a continuous active-active replication compared to DistCP are things like backup and disaster recovery and ingesting into multiple data centers. Hope that helps.
Related
I have a situation where I have to copy data/files from PROD to UAT (hadoop clusters). For that I am using 'distcp' now. but it is taking forever. As distcp uses map-reduce under the hood, is there any way to use spark to make the process any faster? Like we can set hive execution engine to 'TEZ' (to replace map-reduce), can we set execution engine to spark for distcp? Or is there any other 'spark' way to copy data across clusters which may not even bother about distcp?
And here comes my second question (assuming we can set distcp execution engine to spark instead of map-reduce, please don't bother to answer this one otherwise):-
As per my knowledge Spark is faster than map-reduce mainly because it stores data in the memory which it might need to process in several occasions so that it does not have to load the data all the way from disk. Here we are copying data across clusters, so there is no need to process one file (or block or split) more than once as each file will go up into the memory then will be sent over the network, gets copied to the destination cluster disk, end of the story for that file. Then how come Spark makes the process faster if the main feature is not used?
Your bottlenecks on bulk cross-cluster IO are usually
bandwidth between clusters
read bandwidth off the source cluster
write bandwidth to the destination cluster (and with 3x replication, writes do take up disk and switch bandwidth)
allocated space for work (i.e. number of executors, tasks)
Generally on long-distance uploads its your long-haul network that is the bottleneck: you don't need that many workers to flood the network.
There's a famous tale of a distcp operation between two Yahoo! clusters which did manage to do exactly that to part of the backbone: the Hadoop ops team happy that the distcp was going so fast, while the networks ops team are panicing that their core services were somehow suffering due to the traffic between two sites. I believe this incident is the reason that distcp now has a -bandwidth option :)
Where there may be limitations in distcp, it's probably in task setup and execution: the decision of which files to copy is made in advance and there's not much (any?) intelligence in rescheduling work if some files copy fast but others are outstanding.
Distcp just builds up the list in advance and hands it off to the special distcp mappers, each of which reads its list of files and copies it over.
Someone could try doing a spark version of distcp; it could be an interesting project if someone wanted to work on better scheduling, relying on the fact that spark is very efficient at pushing out new work to existing executors: a spark version could push out work dynamically, rather than listing everything in advance. Indeed, it could still start the copy operation while enumerating the files to copy, for a faster startup time. Even so: cross-cluster bandwidth will usually be the choke point.
Spark is not really intended for data movement between Hadoop clusters. You may want to look into additional mappers for your distcp job using the "-m" option.
I was wondering what would be the best way to replicate the data present in a Hadoop cluster H1 in data center DC1 to another Hadoop cluster H2 in data center DC2 (warm backup preferably). I know that Hadoop does data replication and the number of copies of the data created is decided by the replication factor set in hdfs-site.xml. I have a few questions related to this
Would it make sense to have the data nodes of one cluster be spread across both data centers so that the data nodes for H1 would be present in both DC1 and DC2. If this makes sense and is viable, then does it mean we do not need H2?
Would it make sense to have the namenodes and datanodes distributed across both data centers rather than having only the datanodes distributed across both data centers?
I have also heard people use distcp and many tools build on top of distcp. But distcp does lazy backups and would prefer warm backups over cold ones.
Some people suggest using Kafka for this but I am not sure how to go about using it.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
It depends on what you are trying to protect against. If you want to protect against site failure, distcp seems to be the only option for cross datacenter replication. However, as you pointed out, distcp has limitations. You can use snapshots to protect against user mistakes or application corruptions because replication or multiple replicas will not protect against that. Other commercial tools are available for automating the backup process as well if you don't want to write code and maintain it.
I want to know the advantages/disadvantages of using a MySQL Cluster and using the Hadoop framework.
What is the better solution. I would like to read your opinion.
I think the advantages of using a MySQL Cluster are:
high availability
good scalability
high performance / real time data access
you can use commodity hardware
And I don't see a disadvantage! Are there any disadvantages that Hadoop do not has?
The advantages of Hadoop with Hive on top of it are:
also good scalability
you can also use commodity hardware
the ability to run in heterogenous environments
parallel computing with the MapReduce framework
Hive with HiveQL
and the disadvantage is:
no real time data access. It may takes minutes or hours to analyze the data.
So in my opinion for handling big data a MySQL cluster is the better solution. Why Hadoop is the holy grail of handling big data? What is your opinion?
Both of the above answers miss a huge differentiation between mySQL and Hadoop. mySQL requires you to store data in a certain format. It likes heavily structured data - you declare the data type of each column in a table etc. Hadoop doesn't care about this at all.
Example - if you have a billion text log files, to make analysis even possible for mySQL you'd need to parse and load the data first into a mySQL table, typeing each column along the way. With hadoop and mapreduce, you define the function that is to scan/analyze/return the data from its raw source - you don't need pre-processing ETL to get it pre-structured.
If the data is already structured and in mySQL - then (hopefully) its well structured - why export it for hadoop to analyze? If it isn't, why spend the time to ETL the data?
Hadoop is not a replacement of MySQL, so I think they have their own scenario。
Every one know hadoop is better for batch job or offline compute, but there also have many related real time product, such as hbase.
If you wanna choose a offline compute & storage arch.
I suggest hadoop not MySQL cluster for offline compute & storage, because of :
Cost : obviously, hadoop cluster is more cheap than MySQL cluster
Scalability : hadoop support more than ten thousands machine in a cluster
Ecosystem : mapreduce, hive, pig, sqoop and etc.
So you can choose hadoop as offline compute & storage and MySQL as online compute & storage, you also can learn more from lambda architecture.
The other answer is good, but doesn't really explain why hadoop is more scalable for offline data crunching than MySQL Clusters. Hadoop is more efficient for large data sets that must be distributed across many machines because it gives you full control over the sharding of data.
MySQL clusters use auto-sharding, and it's designed to randomly distribute the data so no one machine gets hit with more of the load. On the other hand, Hadoop allows you to explicitly define the data partition so that multiple data points that require simultaneous access will be on the same machine, minimizing the amount of communication among the machines necessary to get the job done. This makes Hadoop better for processing massive data sets in many cases.
The answer to this question has a good explanation of this distinction.
We have a lot of user interaction data from various websites stored in Cassandra such as cookies, page-visits, ads-viewed, ads-clicked, etc.. that we would like to do reporting on. Our current Cassandra schema supports basic reporting and querying. However we also would like to build large queries that would typically involve Joins on large Column Families (containing millions of rows).
What approach is best suited for this? One possibility is to extract data out to a relational database such as mySQL and do data mining there. Alternate could be to attempt at use hadoop with hive or pig to run map reduce queries for this purpose? I must admit I have zero experience with the latter.
Anyone have experience of performance differences in one one vs the other? Would you run map reduce queries on a live Cassandra production instance or on a backup copy to prevent query load from affecting write performance?
In my experience Cassandra is better suited to processes where you need real-time access to your data, fast random reads and just generally handle large traffic loads. However, if you start doing complex analytics, the availability of your Cassandra cluster will probably suffer noticeably. In general from what I've seen it's in your best interest to leave the Cassandra cluster alone, otherwise the availability starts suffering.
Sounds like you need an analytics platform, and I would definitely advise exporting your reporting data out of Cassandra to use in an offline data-warehouse system.
If you can afford it, having a real data-warehouse would allow you to do complex queries with complex joins on multiples tables. These data-warehouse systems are widely used for reporting, here is a list of what are in my opinion the key players:
Netezza
Aster/TeraData
Vertica
A recent one which is gaining a lot of momentum is Amazon Redshift, but it is currently in beta, but if you can get your hands on it you could give this a try since it looks like a solid analytics platform with a pricing much more attractive than the above solutions.
Alternatives like using Hadoop MapReduce/Hive/Pig are also interesting to look at, but probably not a replacement for Hadoop technologies. I would recommend Hive if you have a SQL background because it will be very easy to understand what you're doing and you can scale easily. There are actually already libraries integrated with Hadoop, like Apache Mahout, which allow you to do data-mining on a Hadoop cluster, you should definitely give this a try and see if it fits your needs.
To give you an idea, an approach that I've used that has been working well so far is pre-aggregating the results in Hive and then have the reports themselves generated in a data-warehouse like Netezza to compute complex joins .
Disclosure: I'm an engineer at DataStax.
In addition to Charles' suggestions, you might want to look into DataStax Enterprise (DSE), which offers a nice integration of Cassandra with Hadoop, Hive, Pig, and Mahout.
As Charles mentioned, you don't want to run your analytics directly against Cassandra nodes that are handling your real-time application needs because they can have a substantial impact on performance. To avoid this, DSE allows you to devote a portion of your cluster strictly to analytics by using multiple virtual "datacenters" (in the NetworkToplogyStrategy sense of the term). Queries performed as part of a Hadoop job will only impact those nodes, essentially leaving your normal Cassandra nodes unaffected. Additionally, you can scale each portion of the cluster up or down separately based on your performance needs.
There are a couple of upsides to the DSE approach. The first is that you don't need to perform any ETL prior to processing your data; Cassandra's normal replication mechanisms keep the nodes devoted to analytics up to date. Second, you don't need an external Hadoop cluster. DSE includes a drop-in replacement for HDFS called CFS (CassandraFS), so all source data, intermediate results, and final results from a Hadoop job can be stored in the Cassandra cluster.
Our primary purpose is to use Hadoop for doing analytics. In this use case, we do batch processing, so throughput is more important than latency, meaning that HBase is not necessarily a good fit (although getting closer to real-time analytics does sound appealing). We are playing around with Hive and we like it so far.
Although analytics is the main thing we want to do in the immediate future with Hadoop, we are also looking to potentially migrate parts of our operations to HBase and to serve live traffic out of it. The data that would be stored there is the same data that we use in our analytics, and I wonder if we could just have one system for both live traffic and analytics.
I have read a lot of reports and it seems that most organizations choose to have separate clusters for serving traffic and for analytics. This seems like a reasonable choice for stability purposes, since we plan to have many people writing Hive queries, and badly written queries could potentially compromise the live operations.
Now my question is: how are those two different use cases reconciled (serving live traffic and doing batch analytics)? Do organizations use systems to write all data in two otherwise independent clusters? Or is it possible to do this out of the box with a single cluster in which some of the nodes serve live traffic and others do only analytics?
What I'm thinking is that we could perhaps have all data coming into the nodes that are used for serving live traffic, and let the HDFS replication mechanisms manage the copying of data into nodes that are used for analytics (increasing the replication higher than the default 3 probably makes sense in such scenario). Hadoop can be made aware of special network topologies, and it has functionality to always replicate at least one copy to different racks, so this seems to mesh well with what I'm describing.
The nodes dedicated to live traffic could be set to have zero (or few) map and reduce slots, so that all Hive queries end up being processed by the nodes dedicated to analytics.
The nodes dedicated to analytics would always be a little behind those dedicated to serving live traffic, but that does not seem to be a problem.
Does that kind of solution make sense? I am thinking it could be more simple to have one cluster than two, but would this be significantly riskier? Are there known cases of companies using a HBase cluster to serve live traffic while also running batch analytics jobs on it?
I'd love to get your opinions on this :) !
Thanks.
EDIT: What about Brisk? It's based on Cassandra instead of HBase, but it seems to be made exactly for what I'm describing (hybrid clusters). Has anyone worked with it before? Is it mature?
--
Felix
Your approach has a few problems... even in rack aware mode, if you have more than a few racks I don't see how you can be guaranteed your nodes will be replicated on those nodes. If you lose one of your "live" nodes, then you will be under-replicated for a while and won't have access to that data.
HBase is greedy in terms of resources and I've found it doesn't play well with others (in terms of memory and CPU) in high load situations. You mention, too, that heavy analytics can impact live performance, which is also true.
In my cluster, we use Hadoop quite a bit to preprocess data for ingest into HBase. We do things like enrichment, filtering out records we don't want, transforming, summarization, etc. If you are thinking you want to do something like this, I suggest sending your data to HDFS on your Hadoop cluster first, then offloading it to your HBase cluster.
There is nothing stopping you from having your HBase cluster and Hadoop cluster on the same network backplane. I suggest instead of having hybrid nodes, just dedicate some nodes to your Hadoop cluster and some nodes to your Hbase cluster. The network transfer between the two will be quite snappy.
Just my personal experience so I'm not sure how much of it is relevant. I hope you find it useful and best of luck!
I think this kind of solution might have sense, since MR is mostly CPU intensive and HBASE is a memory hungry beast. What we do need - is to properly arrange resource management. I think it is possible in the following way:
a) CPU. We can define maximum number of MR mappers/reducers per slot and assuming that each mapper is single threaded we can limit CPU consumption of the MR. The rest will go to HBASE.
b) Memory.We can limit memory for mappers and reducers and the rest give to HBASE.
c) I think we can not properly manage HDFS bandwidth sharing, but I do not think it should be a problem for HBASE -since for it disk operations are not on the critical path.