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

On data skewness, stragglers, and MapReduce progress indicators

We tackle the problem of predicting the performance of MapReduce applications, designing accurate progress indicators that keep programmers informed on the percentage of completed computation time during the execution of a job. Through extensive experiments, we show that state-of-the-art progress indicators (including the one provided by Hadoop) can be seriously harmed by data skewness, load unbalancing, and straggling tasks. This is mainly due to their implicit assumption that the running time depends linearly on the input size. We thus design a novel profile-guided progress indicator, called NearestFit, that operates without the linear hypothesis assumption and exploits a careful combination of nearest neighbor regression and statistical curve fitting techniques. Our theoretical progress model requires fine-grained profile data, that can be very difficult to manage in practice. To overcome this issue, we resort to computing accurate approximations for some of the quantities used in our model through space- and time-efficient data streaming algorithms. We implemented NearestFit on top of Hadoop 2.6.0. An extensive empirical assessment over the Amazon EC2 platform on a variety of real-world benchmarks shows that NearestFit is practical w.r.t. space and time overheads and that its accuracy is generally very good, even in scenarios where competitors incur non-negligible errors and wide prediction fluctuations. Overall, NearestFit significantly improves the current state-of-art on progress analysis for MapReduce