3 ms·
Design and Implementation of the Wave Transactional Filesystem
- binarymax 11y agoQuality of the paper looks like a good read, notwithstanding the terrible acronym for the name.
- nl 11y agoWe were just joking at work today how Cloudera's new Kudu "fast storage system"[1] compares itself to "fast" HBase. At least there they were talking about random access (something that HBase is reasonably ok at), and put HDFS on the "slow" end of the spectrum when talking about storage. This system claims: Experiments show that WTF can qualitatively outperform the industry-standard HDFS distributed filesystem, up to a factor of four in a sorting benchmark, by reducing I/O costs They benchmark a sort 300GB of data. You know what's fast at sorting 300GB data? My laptop. Sort a PB[2] much faster than Spark+HDFS and then it might be worth looking at. Even 100TB[3] is an interesting size. Maybe I'm being too harsh? What am I missing here? [1] http://blog.cloudera.com/blog/2015/09/kudu-new-apache-hadoop-storage-for-fast-analytics-on-fast-data/ http://blog.cloudera.com/blog/2015/09/kudu-new-apache-hadoop... [2] https://databricks.com/blog/2014/10/10/spark-petabyte-sort.html https://databricks.com/blog/2014/10/10/spark-petabyte-sort.h... (note that this was on disk with HDFS, not Spark in memory). [3] http://sortbenchmark.org/ http://sortbenchmark.org/
- notacoward 11y agoLooks very interesting. A more thorough performance comparison - both more alternatives and more varied workloads - would certainly be nice, though. HDFS isn't even close to full POSIX semantics, so comparing against it doesn't tell us much about the viability of the WTF approach for more general use. Maybe if I have some spare time I'll take it for a spin myself. Disclaimer: I'm a developer on the Gluster project.