I am trying to build a data services layer using cassandra as the backend store. I am new to Cassandra and not sure what client to use for cassandra - thrift or cql 3? We have a lot of mapreduce jobs using Amazon elastic mapreduce (EMR) that will be reading/ writing the data from cassandra at high volume. The total data volume will be > 100 TB with billions of rows in Cassandra. The mapreduce jobs may be read or write heavy with high qps (>1000 qps). The requirements are as follows:
Simplicity of client code. It seems thrift has in-built integration with Hadoop for bulk data loading using sstableloader (http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/bulk-loading).
Ability to define new columns at run time. We may need to add more columns depending on application requirements. It seems cql3 does not allow definition of columns dynamically at runtime.
Performance of bulk read/ write. Not sure which client is better. However, I found this post that claims thrift client has better performance for high data volume: http://jira.pentaho.com/browse/PDI-7610?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
I could not find any authoritative source of information that answers this question. Appreciate if you could help with this since I am sure this is a common problem for most folks and would benefit the overall community.
Many thanks in advance.
-Prateek
Hadoop and Cassandra are both written in Java so definitely pick a java based driver. As far as simplicity of code goes I'd go for Astyanax, their wiki page is really good and documentation is solid all round. And yes atyanax does allow you to define columns at runtime as you please but be aware that thrift based APIs are being superseded by cql apis.
If however you want to go down the pure cql3 route, datastax's driver is what I'd advise you to use. It allows for asynchronous connections and is continuously updated (view the logs). The code is also very clean although documentation isn't quite there yet, but there are tests in the source that you can look at.
But to be honest, there are so many questions about the APIs that you should read though them and form an opinion for yourself:
Cassandra Client Java API's
About Java Cassandra Client, which one is better? How about CQL?
Advantages of using cql over thrift
Also for performance here some benchmarks (they are however outdated!) showing that cql is catching up (and somewhat overtaking when it comes to prepared statements) thrift:
compare string vs. binary prepared statement parameters
CQL benchmarking
Related
How effective is to use Apache NIFI for the ETL process having source as HDFS & destination as Oracle DB. What are the limitations of Apache NIFI compared other ETL tools such as Pentaho,Datastage,etc..
Main advantage of NiFi
The main advantages of NiFi:
Intuitive gui, which allows for easy inspection of the data
Strong delivery guarantees
Low latency, you can support both batch and streaming usecases
It can handle any format, not only limited to SQL tables, but can also move log files etc.
Schema aware, and can share schema with solutions like Kafka, Flink, Spark
Main limitation of NiFi
NiFi is really a tool for moving data around, you can do enrichments of individual records but it is typically mentioned to do 'EtL' with a small t. A typical thing that you would not want to do in NiFi is joining two dynamic data sources.
For joining tables, tools like Spark, Hive, or classical ETL alternatives are often used.
For joining streams, tools like Flink and Spark Streaming are often used.
Conclusion
NiFi is a great tool, you just need to make sure you use it for the right usecase. Where needed you can use other tools to complement it.
Extra strong full disclosure: I am an employee of Cloudera, the company that supports NiFi and other projects such as Spark and Flink. I have used other ETL tools before, but not to the same extent as NiFi.
Not sure about sqoop, I can explain the benifits of using Apache Nifi. In your case the data in HDFS could be of any format(Unstructured), Nifi has a capability to process and bring it to format of your choice so that you can directly save it to any RDBMS.
Nifi handles back-pressure in vary effective way to have lossless transmission.
One of the critical features that NiFi provides that our competitors generally don't is the ability to stop jobs and examine the flow and downstream systems while it's running. For you, this means you can test the flow against a test HDFS folder and a test Oracle DB, let some data go through, pause the flow and poke around Oracle to make sure it's to your liking after a matter of seconds or minutes instead of waiting for a "job to complete." It makes the process extremely agile.
Actually Nifi is very good tool. You can easily manipulate processors. In short time you can migrate huge data.
But for destinations such as RDBMS, there are always problems. I used to have a lot of problems about "non-killing" threads, you have to be very careful about stopping processes and the configuration of processors. Some processors like QueryDatabasetable consumes huge memory and the server goes down.
I am planning to do a class project and was going through few technologies where I can automate or set the flow of data between systems and found that there are couple of them i.e. Apache NiFi and StreamSets ( to my knowledge ). What I couldn't understand is the difference between them and use-cases where they can be used? I am new to this and if anyone can explain me a bit would be highly appreciated. Thanks
Suraj,
Great question.
My response is as a member of the open source Apache NiFi project management committee and as someone who is passionate about the dataflow management domain.
I've been involved in the NiFi project since it was started in 2006. My knowledge of Streamsets is relatively limited so I'll let them speak for it as they have.
The key thing to understand is that NiFi was built to do one really important thing really well and that is 'Dataflow Management'. It's design is based on a concept called Flow Based Programming which you may want to read about and reference for your project 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow-based_programming'
There are already many systems which produce data such as sensors and others. There are many systems which focus on data processing like Apache Storm, Spark, Flink, and others. And finally there are many systems which store data like HDFS, relational databases, and so on. NiFi purely focuses on the task of connecting those systems and providing the user experience and core functions necessary to do that well.
What are some of those key functions and design choices made to make that effective:
1) Interactive command and control
The job of someone trying to connect systems is to be able to rapidly and efficiently interact with the constant streams of data they see. NiFi's UI allows you do just that as the data is flowing you can add features to operate on it, fork off copies of data to try new approaches, adjust current settings, see recent and historical stats, helpful in-line documentation and more. Almost all other systems by comparison have a model that is design and deploy oriented meaning you make a series of changes and then deploy them. That model is fine and can be intuitive but for the dataflow management job it means you don't get the interactive change by change feedback that is so vital to quickly build new flows or to safely and efficiently correct or improve handling of existing data streams.
2) Data Provenance
A very unique capability of NiFi is its ability to generate fine grained and powerful traceability details for where your data comes from, what is done to it, where its sent and when it is done in the flow. This is essential to effective dataflow management for a number of reasons but for someone in the early exploration phases and working a project the most important thing this gives you is awesome debugging flexibility. You can setup your flows and let things run and then use provenance to actually prove that it did exactly what you wanted. If something didn't happen as you expected you can fix the flow and replay the object then repeat. Really helpful.
3) Purpose built data repositories
NiFi's out of the box experience offers very powerful performance even on really modest hardware or virtual environments. This is because of the flowfile and content repository design which gives us the high performance but transactional semantics we want as data works its way through the flow. The flowfile repository is a simple write ahead log implementation and the content repository provides an immutable versioned content store. That in turn means we can 'copy' data by only ever adding a new pointer (not actually copying bytes) or we can transform data by simply reading from the original and writing out a new version. Again very efficient. Couple that with the provenance stuff I mentioned a moment ago and it just provides a really powerful platform. Another really key thing to understand here is that in the business of connecting systems you don't always get to dictate things like size of data involved. The NiFi API was built to honor that fact and so our API lets processors do things like receive, transform, and send data without ever having to load the full objects in memory. These repositories also mean that in most flows the majority of processors do not even touch the content at all. However, you can easily see from the NiFi UI precisely how many bytes are actually being read or written so again you get really helpful information in establishing and observing your flows. This design also means NiFi can support back-pressure and pressure-release naturally and these are really critical features for a dataflow management system.
It was mentioned previously by the folks from the Streamsets company that NiFi is file oriented. I'm not really sure what the difference is between a file or a record or a tuple or an object or a message in generic terms but the reality is when data is in the flow then it is 'a thing that needs to be managed and delivered'. That is what NiFi does. Whether you have lots of really high speed tiny things or you have large things and whether they came from a live audio stream off the Internet or they come from a file sitting on your harddrive it doesn't matter. Once it is in the flow it is time to manage and deliver it. That is what NiFi does.
It was also mentioned by the Streamsets company that NiFi is schemaless. It is accurate that NiFi does not force conversion of data from whatever it is originally to some special NiFi format nor do we have to reconvert it back to some format for follow-on delivery. It would be pretty unfortunate if we did that because what this means is that even the most trivial of cases would have problematic performance implications and luckily NiFi does not have that problem. Further had we gone that route then it would mean handling diverse datasets like media (images, video, audio, and more) would be difficult but we're on the right track and NiFi is used for things like that all the time.
Finally, as you continue with your project and if you find there are things you'd like to see improved or that you'd like to contribute code we'd love to have your help. From https://nifi.apache.org you can quickly find information on how to file tickets, submit patches, email the mailing list, and more.
Here are a couple of fun recent NiFi projects to checkout:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nifi-ocr-using-apache-read-childrens-books-jeremy-dyer
https://twitter.com/KayLerch/status/721455415456882689
Good luck on the class project! If you have any questions the users#nifi.apache.org mailing list would love to help.
Thanks
Joe
Both Apache NiFi and StreamSets Data Collector are Apache-licensed open source tools.
Hortonworks does have a commercially supported variant called Hortonworks DataFlow (HDF).
While both have a lot of similarities such as a web-based ui, both are used for ingesting data there are a few key differences. They also both consist of a processors linked together to perform transformations, serialization, etc.
NiFi processors are file-oriented and schemaless. This means that a piece of data is represented by a FlowFile (this could be an actual file on disk, or some blob of data acquired elsewhere). Each processor is responsible for understanding the content of the data in order to operate on it. Thus if one processor understands format A and another only understands format B, you may need to perform a data format conversion in between those two processors.
NiFi can be run standalone, or as a cluster using its own built-in clustering system.
StreamSets Data Collector (SDC) however, takes a record based approach. What this means is that as data enters your pipeline it (whether its JSON, CSV, etc) it is parsed into a common format so that the responsibility of understanding the data format is no longer placed on each individual processor and any processor can be connected to any other processor.
SDC also runs standalone, and also a clustered mode, but it runs atop Spark on YARN/Mesos instead, leveraging existing cluster resources you may have.
NiFi has been around for about the last 10 years (but less than 2 years in the open source community).
StreamSets was released to the open source community a little bit later in 2015. It is vendor agnostic, and as far as Hadoop goes Hortonworks, Cloudera, and MapR are all supported.
Full Disclosure: I am an engineer who works on StreamSets.
They are very similar for data ingest scenarios.
Apache NIFI(HDP) is more mature and StreamSets is more lightweight.
Both are easy to use, both have strong capability. And StreamSets could easily
They have companies behind, Hortonworks and Cloudera.
Obviously there are more contributors working on NIFI than StreamSets, of course, NIFI have more enterprise deployments in production.
Two of the key differentiators between the two IMHO are.
Apache NiFi is a Top Level Apache project, meaning it has gone through the incubation process described here, http://incubator.apache.org/policy/process.html, and can accept contributions from developers around the world who follow the standard Apache process which ensures software quality. StreamSets, is Apache LICENSED, meaning anyone can reuse the code, etc. But the project is not managed as an Apache project. In fact, in order to even contribute to Streamsets, you are REQUIRED to sign a contract. https://streamsets.com/contributing/ . Contrast this with the Apache NiFi contributor guide, which wasn't written by a lawyer. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide#ContributorGuide-HowtocontributetoApacheNiFi
StreamSets "runs atop Spark on YARN/Mesos instead, leveraging existing cluster resources you may have." which imposes a bit of restriction if you want to deploy your dataflows further toward the Edge where the Devices that are generating the data live. Apache MiniFi, a sub-project of NiFi can run on a single Raspberry Pi, while I am fairly confident that StreamSets cannot, as YARN or Mesos require more resources than a Raspberry Pi provides.
Disclosure: I am a Hortonworks employee
My db is Cassandra (datastax enterprise => linux). Since it doesn't support group-by, aggregate and etc. for reporting, according to its fundamentals, it's not a good decision to use Cassandra, downright. I googled about this deficit and found some results as this, and this and also this one.
But I really became confused! Hive uses additional tables, individually. Solr is better for full-text searching and like that. And Spark...it's useful for analysis, but, I didn't understand if it uses Hadoop eventually, or not.
I will have many reports, which needs indexing and grouping, at least. But I don't want to use additional tables which will impose overhead. And also, I'm .Net (and not Java) developer, and my application is besed on .Net Framework, too.
I am not exactly sure what your question is here and your confusion is understandable as with Cassandra and DSE there is a lot going on.
You are correct in stating that Cassandra does not support any aggregations or group by functionality that you would want to use for reporting.
Solr (DSE Search) is used for ad-hoc and full text searching of the data stored in Cassandra. This only works on a single table at a time.
Spark (DSE Analytics) provides analytics capabilities such as Map-Reduce as well as the ability to filter and join tables. This is not done in real-time though as the processing and shuffling of data can be expensive depending on the data load.
Spark does not use Hadoop. It performs many of the same jobs but is more efficient in many scenarios as it allows for in-memory distributed processing on the data.
Since you are using DataStax Enterprise the advantage is that you have built in connectors to both Solr (DSE Search) to provide ad-hoc queries and Spark (DSE Analytics) to provide analytics on your data.
Since I don't know your exact reporting requirements it is difficult to give you a specific recommendation. If you can provide some additional details about what sort of reporting (scheduled versus ad-hoc etc.) you will be running I may be able to help you more.
I use my API logs to extract information like:
In this period of time how many are the users of my API ?
Or in this period of time, what type of services are called the most ?
Almost all the information I extract depend on the timestamp. Actually I use MongoDB and I added the time-stamp as an index(for 80GB, indexes size is 12GB).
A migration to cassandra or Hbase was recommended for me. And I want to know which is better for my use case:
Analysis for timeseries data.
Both good write and read performance are required.
Possibility of using hadoop to do my data analysis.
Thanks for sharing your point of view or your experience.
Advantages of Cassandra:
Cassandra generally shows better performance (though both are excellent).
Cassandra is substantially easier to setup and manage from an operational stand point (though there are tools that will help either way).
Advantages of HBase:
Native to the hadoop ecosystem
HBase will require you installing hadoop anyway, and you get a nice two-for-one. To use Cassandra you will probably need to go to use DataStax Enterprise, a commercial, non-open source product, OR investigate using Spark for your analytics work which has an open-source connector with Cassandra.
Chocolate or Vanilla ice cream - which is better?
I would suggest that you would be the best decision maker. Set up development environments for each option, and this will tell you much more about operational and tuning issues than, I think, anyone else might be able to give you. :)
We are currently using elasticsearch to index and perform searches on about 10M documents. It works fine and we are happy with its performance. My colleague who initiated the use of elasticsearch is convinced that it can be used as the central data repository and other data systems (e.g. SQL Server, Hadoop/Hive) can have data pushed to them. I didn't have any arguments against it because my knowledge of both is too limited. However, I am concerned.
I do know that data in elasticsearch is stored in a manner that is efficient for text searching. Hadoop stores data just as a file system would but in a manner that is efficient to scale/replicate blocks over over multiple data nodes. Therefore, in my mind it seems more beneficial to use Hadoop (as it is more agnostic w.r.t its view on data) as a central data repository. Then push data from Hadoop to SQL, elasticsearch, etc...
I've read a few articles on Hadoop and elasticsearch use cases and it seems conventional to use Hadoop as the central data repository. However, I can't find anything that would suggest that elasticsearch wouldn't be a decent alternative.
Please Help!
As is the case with all database deployments, it really depends on your specific application.
Elasticsearch is a great open source search engine built on top of Apache Lucene. Its features and upgrades allow it to basically function just like a schema-less JSON datastore that can be accessed using both search-specific methods and regular database CRUD-like commands.
Nevertheless all the advantages Elasticsearch that brings, there are still some main disadvantages:
Security - Elasticsearch does not provide any authentication or access control functionality. It's supported since they have introduced shield.
Transactions - There is no support for transactions or processing on data manipulation. Well now data manipulation is handled with logstash.
Durability - ES is distributed and fairly stable but backups and durability are not as high priority as in other data stores.
Maturity of tools - ES is still relatively new and has not had time to develop mature client libraries and 3rd party tools which can make development much harder. We can consider that it's quite mature now
with a variety of connectors and tools around it like kibana. But it's still not suited for large computations - Commands for searching data are not suited to "large" scans of data and advanced computation on the db side.
Data Availability - ES makes data available in "near real-time" which may require additional considerations in your application (ie: comments page where a user adds new comment, refreshing the page might not actually show the new post because the index is still updating).
If you can deal with these issues then there's certainly no reason why you can't use Elasticsearch as your primary data store. It can actually lower complexity and improve performance by not having to duplicate your data but again this depends on your specific use case.
As always, weigh the benefits, do some experimentation and see what works best for you.
DISCLAIMER: This answer was written a while ago for the Elasticsearch 1.x series. These critics still somehow stand with the 2.x series. But Elastic is working on them, as the 2.x series comes with more mature tools, APIs and plugins per example, security wise, like Shield or even transport clients like Logstash or Beats, etc.
I'd highly discourage most users from using elasticsearch as your primary datastore. It will work great until your cluster melts down due to a network partition. Even settings such as minimum_master_nodes that the ES pros always set won't save you. See this excellent analysis by Aphyr with his Call Me Maybe series:
http://aphyr.com/posts/317-call-me-maybe-elasticsearch
eliasah, is right, it depends on your use case, but if your data (and job) is important to you, stay away.
Keep your golden record of your data stored in something really focused on persisting and sync your data out to search from there. It adds extra complexity and resources, but will result in a better nights rest :)
There are plenty of ways to go about this and if elasticsearch does everything you need, you can look into Kafka for persisting all the events going into a cluster which would allow replaying if things go wrong. I like this approach as it provides an async ingestion pipeline into elasticsearch that also does the persistence.