MapReduce, Globus, BOINC
Readings
Ian Foster and Carl Kesselman, "Computational Grids" (1998)
Ian Foster, "Globus Toolkit Version 4: Software for Service-Oriented Systems" (2006)
David P. Anderson, "BOINC: A System for Public-Resource Computing and Storage" (2004)
Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat, "MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters" (2004)
Paper mentioned in class:
Krste Asanovíc, et al, "The Landscape of Parallel Computing Research: A View from Berkeley" (2006)
Notes
Globus
- Ony in release 4 they implemented Web services.
- Its an API.
- Globus you build an applications on top of existing framework. More like an interface to your application, other than something your application will use internally.
- Seems programmer friendly, though possibly unwieldy and too complex.
- Arguably the state of modern programming.
- Using a complex set of APIs, not actually just a simple new language.
- Just a new API to learn, Globus is this way too.
- Arguably the state of modern programming.
- Is this ok? Is this enough? Should we be expecting more from such a network?
- Some systems based their environment on the POSIX API – making the transition very easy.
- There are a LOT of API calls required for this system, why not a simpler API?
- What was NOT in this paper?
- No example code
- No comparison (even to previous versions!)
- No evaluation/metrics/performance
- Was this a marketing document?
- Side reports?
- AWEFUL!
- Wait a second… using XML in a grid computing environment? How SLOWWWWWWW
- Brought together by the Globus Alliance
- An effort to provide a standard
- In essence done by committee… meaning that people aren’t necessarily using it as it is developed, and priorities are skewed to marketable specs rather than performance metrics.
BOINC
- Premise? Local client on your machine downloads a 'workunit', churns the data, dumps the results and downloads a new 'workunit'
- Why are we caring?
- Entertainment?
- How is this an OS paradigm? What is it useful for?
- It isn't really an OS, just a method to have your mass computation done
- More of a distributed scheduler?
- Not even, central scheduler, but mass computation
- How many systems have we seen that have accomplished mass computation on millions of uncontrolled computers?
- ummm... none?
- As an OS?
- An OS is something that is created to run programs
- This is a special case allowing us to run specific programs (BUT IS IT AN OS?)
- Useful for "embarassingly parallel programs"
- Perfect for large scale simulation?
- But then you need LOTS of communication, and this system does not have interconnects
- The type of problems that we most care about tend not to be THAT parallel
- So what would a distributed OS be for?
- Shared communication!
- But we don't have much in the way that works well.
- Shared communication!
- An OS typically provides a lot of services, together in one package
- We have been seeing that there are no complete packages, just pieces and parts. Why?
- Computers are changing too fast? Same *NIX OS, same TCP/IP stack... so more of the same, why no true solution?
- Communication is unreliable? Yes, but that is also nothing new
- We have been seeing that there are no complete packages, just pieces and parts. Why?
- If people found that distributed file systems were successful, they would be in use all the time, but they aren't. Reason? PERFORMANCE
- Take away message?
- Can't handle communication - how do you abstract access to resources when driven through a network?
- As a result, we have many many specialized solutions for particular workloads.
- If you are willing to not have communication between nodes, you gain a HUGE amount of computation.
- The most reliable systems are the one that forget communication.
- The more you system tolerates bad stuff with a network, the better is scales.
- We dont have general cluster distributed OS.
MapReduce
- The communication happens when you reduce the problem.
- MapReduce works because there is mapping and there is reducing.
- There is no side effects (enabling things).
- MapReduce works because there is mapping and there is reducing.
- Why is it a good fit to a thousands of machines?
- They first had all these pieces, and if one of them does not replay, then they just do it over :)
- You create the algorithm to fit this model, create this pieces, you have a combining function.
- You have to have some back end that keeps track of who got work done. But you don't care if any machine fail in the middle of the computation.
- You create the algorithm to fit this model, create this pieces, you have a combining function.
- They first had all these pieces, and if one of them does not replay, then they just do it over :)
- Compare MapReduce to POSIX
- The difference is in efficiency. MapReduce is an extension to POSIX.
- Distributed OSs trying to run the programs that run on different APIs. The systems that work, they are relaxed.
- Here is the model, loose compatibility by gaining scalability.
- Distributed OSs trying to run the programs that run on different APIs. The systems that work, they are relaxed.
- The difference is in efficiency. MapReduce is an extension to POSIX.
- Side effects - you cant redo and undo. Functional programming model