Scientific Computing Meets Big Data Technology: An Astronomy Use Case

Scientific analyses commonly compose multiple single-process programs into a dataflow. An end-to-end dataflow of single-process programs is known as a many-task application. Typically, tools from the HPC software stack are used to parallelize these analyses. In this work, we investigate an alternate approach that uses Apache Spark -- a modern big data platform -- to parallelize many-task applications. We present Kira, a flexible and distributed astronomy image processing toolkit using Apache Spark. We then use the Kira toolkit to implement a Source Extractor application for astronomy images, called Kira SE. With Kira SE as the use case, we study the programming flexibility, dataflow richness, scheduling capacity and performance of Apache Spark running on the EC2 cloud. By exploiting data locality, Kira SE achieves a 2.5x speedup over an equivalent C program when analyzing a 1TB dataset using 512 cores on the Amazon EC2 cloud. Furthermore, we show that by leveraging software originally designed for big data infrastructure, Kira SE achieves competitive performance to the C implementation running on the NERSC Edison supercomputer. Our experience with Kira indicates that emerging Big Data platforms such as Apache Spark are a performant alternative for many-task scientific applications

The Family of MapReduce and Large Scale Data Processing Systems

In the last two decades, the continuous increase of computational power has produced an overwhelming flow of data which has called for a paradigm shift in the computing architecture and large scale data processing mechanisms. MapReduce is a simple and powerful programming model that enables easy development of scalable parallel applications to process vast amounts of data on large clusters of commodity machines. It isolates the application from the details of running a distributed program such as issues on data distribution, scheduling and fault tolerance. However, the original implementation of the MapReduce framework had some limitations that have been tackled by many research efforts in several followup works after its introduction. This article provides a comprehensive survey for a family of approaches and mechanisms of large scale data processing mechanisms that have been implemented based on the original idea of the MapReduce framework and are currently gaining a lot of momentum in both research and industrial communities. We also cover a set of introduced systems that have been implemented to provide declarative programming interfaces on top of the MapReduce framework. In addition, we review several large scale data processing systems that resemble some of the ideas of the MapReduce framework for different purposes and application scenarios. Finally, we discuss some of the future research directions for implementing the next generation of MapReduce-like solutions.Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1105.4252 by other author

A Tale of Two Data-Intensive Paradigms: Applications, Abstractions, and Architectures

Scientific problems that depend on processing large amounts of data require overcoming challenges in multiple areas: managing large-scale data distribution, co-placement and scheduling of data with compute resources, and storing and transferring large volumes of data. We analyze the ecosystems of the two prominent paradigms for data-intensive applications, hereafter referred to as the high-performance computing and the Apache-Hadoop paradigm. We propose a basis, common terminology and functional factors upon which to analyze the two approaches of both paradigms. We discuss the concept of "Big Data Ogres" and their facets as means of understanding and characterizing the most common application workloads found across the two paradigms. We then discuss the salient features of the two paradigms, and compare and contrast the two approaches. Specifically, we examine common implementation/approaches of these paradigms, shed light upon the reasons for their current "architecture" and discuss some typical workloads that utilize them. In spite of the significant software distinctions, we believe there is architectural similarity. We discuss the potential integration of different implementations, across the different levels and components. Our comparison progresses from a fully qualitative examination of the two paradigms, to a semi-quantitative methodology. We use a simple and broadly used Ogre (K-means clustering), characterize its performance on a range of representative platforms, covering several implementations from both paradigms. Our experiments provide an insight into the relative strengths of the two paradigms. We propose that the set of Ogres will serve as a benchmark to evaluate the two paradigms along different dimensions.Comment: 8 pages, 2 figure