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

MapReduce is Good Enough? If All You Have is a Hammer, Throw Away Everything That's Not a Nail!

Hadoop is currently the large-scale data analysis "hammer" of choice, but there exist classes of algorithms that aren't "nails", in the sense that they are not particularly amenable to the MapReduce programming model. To address this, researchers have proposed MapReduce extensions or alternative programming models in which these algorithms can be elegantly expressed. This essay espouses a very different position: that MapReduce is "good enough", and that instead of trying to invent screwdrivers, we should simply get rid of everything that's not a nail. To be more specific, much discussion in the literature surrounds the fact that iterative algorithms are a poor fit for MapReduce: the simple solution is to find alternative non-iterative algorithms that solve the same problem. This essay captures my personal experiences as an academic researcher as well as a software engineer in a "real-world" production analytics environment. From this combined perspective I reflect on the current state and future of "big data" research

Iterative MapReduce for Large Scale Machine Learning

Large datasets ("Big Data") are becoming ubiquitous because the potential value in deriving insights from data, across a wide range of business and scientific applications, is increasingly recognized. In particular, machine learning - one of the foundational disciplines for data analysis, summarization and inference - on Big Data has become routine at most organizations that operate large clouds, usually based on systems such as Hadoop that support the MapReduce programming paradigm. It is now widely recognized that while MapReduce is highly scalable, it suffers from a critical weakness for machine learning: it does not support iteration. Consequently, one has to program around this limitation, leading to fragile, inefficient code. Further, reliance on the programmer is inherently flawed in a multi-tenanted cloud environment, since the programmer does not have visibility into the state of the system when his or her program executes. Prior work has sought to address this problem by either developing specialized systems aimed at stylized applications, or by augmenting MapReduce with ad hoc support for saving state across iterations (driven by an external loop). In this paper, we advocate support for looping as a first-class construct, and propose an extension of the MapReduce programming paradigm called {\em Iterative MapReduce}. We then develop an optimizer for a class of Iterative MapReduce programs that cover most machine learning techniques, provide theoretical justifications for the key optimization steps, and empirically demonstrate that system-optimized programs for significant machine learning tasks are competitive with state-of-the-art specialized solutions