Hadoop
Discussion of open source MapReduce implementation Hadoop. Related subjects include:
Comments on SAS
A reporter interviewed me via IM about how CIOs should view SAS Institute and its products. Naturally, I have edited my comments (lightly) into a blog post. They turned out to be clustered into three groups, as follows:
- SAS faces a number of challenges, not unlike those faced by other high-priced legacy technology vendors.
- It is used by organizations who have large budgets to pay for the product and to pay people to be expert on the product’s intricacies.
- SAS has not integrated with scale-out analytic DBMS technologies as well or quickly as had been hoped, or as earlier marketing suggested was likely.
- SAS has not been strong in helping its users do agile predictive analytics.
- SAS’ strengths are concentrated in product breadth:
- Lots of statistical algorithms.
- Various vertical products that make the modeling techniques more accessible in specific application domains.
- Various approaches to engineering for scalability — no one of those has been a table-thumping success to date, but SAS has the resources to keep trying.
- Some level of integration with its own business intelligence and text analytics products.
- For any particular use case, the burden of proof is on SAS alternatives to show that they have enough pieces in the toolkit to meet the needs.
- SPSS (now owned by IBM) also has legacy issues.
- KXEN is focused on marketing use cases.
- Mahout has been one of the less successful Hadoop-related open source projects.
- R-based technology is still maturing.
- The modeling capabilities (as opposed to just scoring) bundled into RDBMS and well-parallelized tend to be pretty limited. Apparent exceptions tend to just be R repackaged.
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Data warehousing, Hadoop, IBM and DB2, KXEN, Predictive modeling and advanced analytics, SAS Institute | Leave a Comment |
Hadoop-related market categorization
I wasn’t the only one to be dubious about Forrester Research’s Hadoop taxonomy (or lack thereof). GigaOm’s Derrick Harris was as well, and offered a much superior approach of his own. In Derrick’s view, there’s Hadoop, Hadoop distributions, Hadoop management, and Hadoop applications. Taking those out of order, and recalling that no market categorization is ever precise:
- “Hadoop applications” is a catch-all category. Since Derrick offered suitable caveats around the label, I’m fine with what he said.
- Hadoop management software commonly comes in the form of suites. Derrick’s discussion was solid.
- Derrick seems to want to define “Hadoop” as being whatever is in the relevant Apache projects. Cool. He does seem to wind up on both sides of the “MapR and DataStax put Hadoop MapReduce on top of something that isn’t HDFS — so is that Hadoop or isn’t it?” question, but that’s a tough ambiguity to avoid.
- Derrick could have been a little clearer on the subject of Hadoop distributions.
Let’s drill down into that last one. Derrick refers to Hadoop distributions as “products” that:
package a set of Hadoop projects (MapReduce, Hive, Sqoop, Pig, etc.) in a way that in theory makes them integrate more naturally, and to run both smoothly and securely.
While that’s a reasonable recitation of the idea’s benefits, I’d rather say that a “distribution” of open source software comprises: Read more
| Categories: Cloudera, Hadoop, MapReduce, Open source | Leave a Comment |
Comments on the 2012 Forrester Wave: Enterprise Hadoop Solutions
Forrester has released its Q1 2012 Forrester Wave: Enterprise Hadoop Solutions. (Googling turns up a direct link, but in case that doesn’t prove stable, here also is a registration-required link from IBM’s Conor O’Mahony.) My comments include:
- The Forrester Wave’s relative vendor rankings are meaningless, in that the document compares apples, peaches, almonds, and peanuts. Apparently, it covers any vendor that includes a distribution of Apache Hadoop MapReduce into something it offers, and that offered at least two (not necessarily full production) references for same.
- The Forrester Wave for “enterprise Hadoop” contradicts itself on the subject of Hortonworks.
- The Forrester Wave for “enterprise Hadoop” is correct when it says “Hortonworks … has Hadoop training and professional services offerings that are still embryonic.”
- Peculiarly, the Forrester Wave for “enterprise Hadoop” also says “Hortonworks offers an impressive Hadoop professional services portfolio”. Hortonworks will likely win one or more nice partnership deals with vendors in adjacent fields, but even so its professional services capabilities are … well, a good word might be “embryonic”.
- Forrester Waves always seem to have weird implicit definitions of “data warehousing”. This one is no exception.
- Forrester gave top marks in “Functionality” to 11 of 13 “enterprise Hadoop” vendors. This seems odd.
- I don’t know why MapR, which doesn’t like HDFS (Hadoop Distributed File System), got top marks in “Subproject integration”.
- Forrester gave top marks in “Storage” to Datameer. It also gave higher marks to MapR than to EMC Greenplum, even though EMC Greenplum’s technology is a superset of MapR’s. Very strange. (Edit: Actually, as per a comment below, there is some uncertainty about the EMC/MapR relationship.)
- Forrester gave higher marks in “Acceleration and optimization” to Hortonworks than to Cloudera and IBM, and higher marks yet to Pentaho. Very odd.
- I’m not sure what Forrester is calling a “Distributed EDW file store connector”, but it sounds like something that Cloudera has provided via partnership to a number of analytic DBMS vendors.
- Forrester’s “Strategy” rankings seem to correlate to a metric of “We’re a large enough vendor to go in N directions at once”, for various values of N.
- Forrester is correct to rank Cloudera’s “Adoption” as being stronger than EMC/Greenplum’s or MapR’s. But Hortonworks’ strong mark for “Adoption” baffles me.
| Categories: Cloudera, Data warehousing, EMC, Greenplum, Hadoop, Hortonworks, MapR, MapReduce, Pentaho | 10 Comments |
Notes on the Oracle Big Data Appliance
Oracle announced its Big Data Appliance. Specs may be found in the Oracle Big Data Appliance press release. Beyond that:
- The most important software on the Oracle Big Data Appliance is a full set of Cloudera Enterprise code. Oracle will do Tier 1 Cloudera/Hadoop support, while Cloudera handles Tiers 2 and 3.
- The key spec ratios are 1 core/4 GB RAM/3 TB raw disk. That’s reasonably in line with Cloudera figures I published in June, 2010.
- This is really Oracle’s multi-structured big data appliance. Oracle’s relational big data appliance is Exadata, which has been out for years and has comparable capacity to Oracle’s new “Big Data Appliance.” (Chris Preimesberger made a similar point.)
- The Oracle Big Data Appliance list price is $450,000 for 18 12-core servers, plus $54,000/year maintenance.
- That’s around $25,000 per server (and associated storage).
- That’s also around $2,000/core.
- That’s also around $500/TB of spinning disk, before compression.
- None of those per-unit figures sounds ridiculous …
- … but because of Oracle’s appliance configuration there’s indeed a hefty minimum initial purchase.
A couple of links explaining Cloudera Manager
Predictably, I wasn’t pre-briefed on the details of Oracle’s Big Data Appliance announcement today, and an inquiry to partner Cloudera doesn’t happen to have been immediately answered.* But anyhow, it’s clear from coverage by Larry Dignan and Derrick Harris that Oracle’s Big Data Appliance includes:
- Some version of Cloudera Manager (I’m guessing more or less the best one).*
- Some version of Apache Hadoop (I’m guessing the same distribution that Cloudera prefers to use).*
- Some kind of support.
In other words, it’s a lot like getting Cloudera Enterprise,* plus some hardware, plus some other stuff.
*Edit: About 2 minutes after I posted this, I got email from Cloudera CEO Mike Olson. Yes, the Oracle Big Data Appliance bundles Cloudera Enterprise.
That raises an anyway recurring question: What exactly is Cloudera Manager? Read more
| Categories: Cloudera, Data warehouse appliances, Hadoop, MapReduce, Oracle | Leave a Comment |
Big data terminology and positioning
Recently, I observed that Big Data terminology is seriously broken. It is reasonable to reduce the subject to two quasi-dimensions:
- Bigness — Volume, Velocity, size
- Structure — Variety, Variability, Complexity
given that
- High-velocity “big data” problems are usually high-volume as well.*
- Variety, variability, and complexity all relate to the simply-structured/poly-structured distinction.
But the conflation should stop there.
*Low-volume/high-velocity problems are commonly referred to as “event processing” and/or “streaming”.
When people claim that bigness and structure are the same issue, they oversimplify into mush. So I think we need four pieces of terminology, reflective of a 2×2 matrix of possibilities. For want of better alternatives, my suggestions are:
- Relational big data is data of high volume that fits well into a relational DBMS.
- Multi-structured big data is data of high volume that doesn’t fit well into a relational DBMS. Alternative: Poly-structured big data.
- Conventional relational data is data of not-so-high volume that fits well into a relational DBMS. Alternatives: Ordinary/normal/smaller relational data.
- Smaller poly-structured data is data for which dynamic schema capabilities are important, but which doesn’t rise to “big data” volume.
Some big-vendor execution questions, and why they matter
When I drafted a list of key analytics-sector issues in honor of look-ahead season, the first item was “execution of various big vendors’ ambitious initiatives”. By “execute” I mean mainly:
- “Deliver products that really meet customers’ desires and needs.”
- “Successfully convince them that you’re doing so …”
- “… at an attractive overall cost.”
Vendors mentioned here are Oracle, SAP, HP, and IBM. Anybody smaller got left out due to the length of this post. Among the bigger omissions were:
- salesforce.com (multiple subjects).
- SAS HPA.
- The evolution of Hadoop.
Hadapt is moving forward
I’ve talked with my clients at Hadapt a couple of times recently. News highlights include:
- The Hadapt 1.0 product is going “Early Access” today.
- General availability of Hadapt 1.0 is targeted for an officially unspecified time frame, but it’s soon.
- Hadapt raised a nice round of venture capital.
- Hadapt added Sharmila Mulligan to the board.
- Dave Kellogg is in the picture too, albeit not as involved as Sharmila.
- Hadapt has moved the company to Cambridge, which is preferable to Yale environs for obvious reasons. (First location = space they’re borrowing from their investors at Bessemer.)
- Headcount is in the low teens, with a target of doubling fast.
The Hadapt product story hasn’t changed significantly from what it was before. Specific points I can add include: Read more
| Categories: Hadapt, Hadoop, MapReduce, PostgreSQL, Theory and architecture, Workload management | 4 Comments |
MarkLogic’s Hadoop connector
It’s time to circle back to a subject I skipped when I otherwise wrote about MarkLogic 5: MarkLogic’s new Hadoop connector.
Most of what’s confusing about the MarkLogic Hadoop Connector lies in two pairs of options it presents you:
- Hadoop can talk XQuery to MarkLogic. But alternatively, Hadoop can use a long-established simple(r) Java API for streaming documents into or out of a MarkLogic database.
- Hadoop can make requests to MarkLogic in MarkLogic’s normal mode of operation, namely to address any node in the MarkLogic cluster, which then serves as a “head” node for the duration of that particular request. But alternatively, Hadoop can use a long-standing MarkLogic option to circumvent the whole DBMS cluster and only talk to one specific MarkLogic node.
Otherwise, the whole thing is just what you would think:
- Hadoop can read from and write to MarkLogic, in parallel at both ends.
- If Hadoop is just writing to MarkLogic, there’s a good chance the process is properly called “ETL.”
- If Hadoop is reading a lot from MarkLogic, there’s a good chance the process is properly called “batch analytics.”
MarkLogic said that it wrote this Hadoop connector itself.
| Categories: Clustering, EAI, EII, ETL, ELT, ETLT, Hadoop, MapReduce, MarkLogic, Parallelization, Workload management | 2 Comments |
The cool aspects of Odiago WibiData
Christophe Bisciglia and Aaron Kimball have a new company.
- It’s called Odiago, and is one of my gratifyingly more numerous tiny clients.
- Odiago’s product line is called WibiData, after the justly popular We Be Sushi restaurants.
- We’ve agreed on a split exclusive de-stealthing launch. You can read about the company/founder/investor stuff on TechCrunch. But this is the place for — well, for the tech crunch.
WibiData is designed for management of, investigative analytics on, and operational analytics on consumer internet data, the main examples of which are web site traffic and personalization and their analogues for games and/or mobile devices. The core WibiData technology, built on HBase and Hadoop,* is a data management and analytic execution layer. That’s where the secret sauce resides. Also included are:
- REST APIs for interactive access.
- Import/export tools, including JDBC access.
- Management tools.
- Analytic libraries — data mining, predictive analytics, machine learning, and so on.
The whole thing is in beta, with about three (paying) beta customers.
*And Avro and so on.
The core ideas of WibiData include:
- ALL data pertaining to a single user (or mobile device) is kept in a single, possibly very long, HBase row.
- There are two primary operators in WibiData, Produce and Gather.
- Produce operates on single rows. It can operate on one row at HBase speed (milliseconds) if you need to inform an interactive user response. Or it can operate on the whole database in batch via Hadoop MapReduce.
- It is reasonable to think of Produce as mainly doing two things. One is the aforementioned serving of data out of WibiData into interactive applications. The other is scoring, classifying, recommending, etc. on individual users (i.e. rows), in line with an analytic model.
- Gather typically operates on all your rows at once, and emits suitable input for a MapReduce Reduce step. It is reasonable to think of Gather as being a key cog in the training of analytic models.
- HBase schema management is done at the WibiData system level, not directly in applications. There’s a WibiData HBase data dictionary, powered by a set of system tables, that specifies cell data types/record types and, in effect, primitive schemas.