Data(base) virtualization — a terminological mess
Data/database virtualization seems to be a hot subject right now, and vendors of a broad variety of different technologies are all claiming to be in the space. A terminological mess has ensued, as Monash’s First and Third Laws of Commercial Semantics are borne out in spades.
If something is like “virtualization”, then it should resemble hypervisors such as VMware. To me:
- The core feature of a hypervisor is that it allows many somethings to run and coexist where ordinarily only one something would come into play. Here the “many somethings” are virtual machines and what’s going on inside them, and the “one something” is the ordinary operating system/hardware computing stack.
- A core feature of original VMware was that the “many somethings” could be quite different — for example, the operating environments of numerous different hardware systems you wanted to decommission, or of new systems that you didn’t want to buy quite yet.
- Important features of hypervisors include:
- The ability to have multiple virtual machines run side by side at once, safely.
- Flexible and powerful workload management if the virtual machines do contend for resources.
- Easy management.
- The negative feature of having sufficiently low overhead.
Anything that claims to be “like virtualization” should be viewed in that light. Read more
| Categories: Clustering, Data integration and middleware, ScaleDB, Theory and architecture, Transparent sharding | 5 Comments |
Incremental MapReduce
My clients at Cloudant, Couchbase, and 10gen/MongoDB (Edit: See Alex Popescu’s comment below) all boast the feature incremental MapReduce. (And they’re not the only ones.) So I feel like making a quick post about it. For starters, I’ll quote myself about Cloudant:
The essence of Cloudant’s incremental MapReduce seems to be that data is selected only if it’s been updated since the last run. Obviously, this only works for MapReduce algorithms whose eventual output can be run on different subsets of the target data set, then aggregated in a simple way.
These implementations of incremental MapReduce are hacked together by teams vastly smaller than those working on Hadoop, and surely fall short of Hadoop in many areas such as performance, fault-tolerance, and language support. That’s a given. Still, if the jobs are short and simple, those deficiencies may be tolerable.
A StackOverflow thread about MongoDB’s version of incremental MapReduce highlights some of the implementation challenges.
But all practicality aside, let’s return to the point that incremental MapReduce only works for some kinds of MapReduce-based algorithms, and consider how much of a limitation that really is. Looking at the Map steps sheds a little light: Read more
| Categories: Cloudant, Couchbase, EAI, EII, ETL, ELT, ETLT, Hadoop, MapReduce, MongoDB, RDF and graphs | 1 Comment |
Notes and comments — October 31, 2012
Time for another catch-all post. First and saddest — one of the earliest great commenters on this blog, and a beloved figure in the Boston-area database community, was Dan Weinreb, whom I had known since some Symbolics briefings in the early 1980s. He passed away recently, much much much too young. Looking back for a couple of examples — even if you’ve never heard of him before, I see that Dan ‘s 2009 comment on Tokutek is still interesting today, and so is a post on his own blog disagreeing with some of my choices in terminology.
Otherwise, in no particular order:
1. Chris Bird is learning MongoDB. As is common for Chris, his comments are both amusing and enlightening.
2. When I relayed Cloudera’s comments on Hadoop adoption, I left out a couple of categories. One Cloudera called “mobile”; when I probed, that was about HBase, with an example being messaging apps.
The other was “phone home” — i.e., the ingest of machine-generated data from a lot of different devices. This is something that’s obviously been coming for several years — but I’m increasingly getting the sense that it’s actually arrived.
| Categories: Cloudera, Data integration and middleware, Hadoop, HBase, Informatica, Metamarkets and Druid, MongoDB, NoSQL, Open source, Telecommunications | 2 Comments |
Introduction to Continuuity
I chatted with Todd Papaioannou about his new company Continuuity. Todd is as handy at combining buzzwords as he is at concatenating vowels, and so Continuuity — with two “U”s — is making a big data fabric platform as a service with REST APIs that runs over Hadoop and HBase in the private or public clouds. I found the whole thing confusing, in that:
- I recoil against buzzwords. In particular …
- … I pay as little attention to distinctions among PaaS/IaaS/WaaS — Platform/Infrastructure/Whatever as a Service — as I can.
- The Continuuity story sounds Heroku-like, but Todd doesn’t want Continuuity compared to Heroku.
- Todd does want Continuuity discussed in terms of the application server category, but:
- It is hard to discuss app servers without segueing quickly amongst development, deployment, and data connectivity, and Continuuity is no exception to that rule.
- There is doubt as to whether using app servers makes any sense.
But all confusion aside, there are some interesting aspects to Continuuity. Read more
| Categories: Application servers, Cloud computing, Hadoop, HBase, MapReduce, Parallelization, Predictive modeling and advanced analytics, Software as a Service (SaaS) | 7 Comments |
Introduction to Cirro
Stuart Frost, of DATAllegro fame, has started a small family of companies, and they’ve become my clients sort of as a group. The first one that I’m choosing to write about is Cirro, for which the basics are:
- Cirro does data federation for analytics.
- Cirro has 10 full-time people plus 4 part-timers.
- Cirro launched its product in June.
- Cirro doesn’t have customers yet, but hopes to fix that soon.
Data federation stories are often hard to understand because, until you drill down, they implausibly sound as if they do anything for everybody. That said, it’s reasonable to think of Cirro as a layer between Hadoop and your BI tool that:
- Helps with data transformations.
- Helps join Hadoop data to relational tables, even if the joins are large ones.
In both cases, Cirro is calling on your data management software for help, RDBMS or Hadoop as the case may be.
More precisely, Cirro’s approach is: Read more
| Categories: Business intelligence, Cirro, Data integration and middleware, Hadoop, MapReduce, Tableau Software | 5 Comments |
Notes on Hadoop adoption and trends
With Strata/Hadoop World being next week, there is much Hadoop discussion. One theme of the season is BI over Hadoop. I have at least 5 clients claiming they’re uniquely positioned to support that (most of whom partner with a 6th client, Tableau); the first 2 whose offerings I’ve actually written about are Teradata Aster and Hadapt. More generally, I’m hearing “Using Hadoop is hard; we’re here to make it easier for you.”
If enterprises aren’t yet happily running business intelligence against Hadoop, what are they doing with it instead? I took the opportunity to ask Cloudera, whose answers didn’t contradict anything I’m hearing elsewhere. As Cloudera tells it (approximately — this part of the conversation* was rushed): Read more
IBM’s ETL
Bearing in mind the difficulties in covering big companies and their products, I had a call with IBM about its core ETL technology (Extract/Transform/Load), and have some notes accordingly. It’s pretty reasonable to say that there are and were a Big Three of high-end ETL vendors:
- Informatica
- IBM/Ascential
- Ab Initio
However, IBM fondly thinks there are a Big Two, on the theory that Informatica Powercenter can’t scale as well as IBM and Ab Initio can, and hence gets knocked out of deals when particularly strong scalability and throughput are required. Read more
| Categories: EAI, EII, ETL, ELT, ETLT, MapReduce, Parallelization | 7 Comments |
Notes on Hadoop adoption
I successfully resisted telephone consulting while on vacation, but I did do some by email. One was on the oft-recurring subject of Hadoop adoption. I think it’s OK to adapt some of that into a post.
Notes on past and current Hadoop adoption include:
- Enterprise Hadoop adoption is for experimental uses or departmental production (as opposed to serious enterprise-level production). Indeed, it’s rather tough to disambiguate those two. If an enterprise uses Hadoop to search for new insights and gets a few, is that an experiment that went well, or is it production?
- One of the core internet-business use cases for Hadoop is a many-step ETL, ELT, and data refinement pipeline, with Hadoop executing some or many of the steps. But I don’t think that’s in production at many enterprises yet, except in the usual forward-leaning sectors of financial services and (we’re all guessing) national intelligence.
- In terms of industry adoption:
- Financial services on the investment/trading side are all over Hadoop, just as they’re all over any technology. Ditto national intelligence, one thinks.
- Consumer financial services, especially credit card, are giving Hadoop a try too, for marketing and/or anti-fraud.
- I’m sure there’s some telecom usage, but I’m hearing of less than I thought I would. Perhaps this is because telcos have spent so long optimizing their data into short, structured records.
- Whatever consumer financial services firms do, retailers do too, albeit with smaller budgets.
Thoughts on how Hadoop adoption will look going forward include: Read more
| Categories: Cloud computing, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, EAI, EII, ETL, ELT, ETLT, Hadoop, Investment research and trading, Telecommunications | 3 Comments |
Integrated internet system design
What are the central challenges in internet system design? We probably all have similar lists, comprising issues such as scale, scale-out, throughput, availability, security, programming ease, UI, or general cost-effectiveness. Screw those up, and you don’t have an internet business.
Much new technology addresses those challenges, with considerable success. But the success is usually one silo at a time — a short-request application here, an analytic database there. When it comes to integration, unsolved problems abound.
The top integration and integration-like challenges for me, from a practical standpoint, are:
- Integrating silos — a decades-old problem still with us in a big way.
- Dynamic schemas with joins.
- Low-latency business intelligence.
- Human real-time personalization.
Other concerns that get mentioned include:
- Geographical distribution due to privacy laws, which for some users is a major requirement for compliance.
- Logical data warehouse, a term that doesn’t actually mean anything real.
- In-memory data grids, which some day may no longer always be hand-coupled to the application and data stacks they accelerate.
Let’s skip those latter issues for now, focusing instead on the first four.
Uninterrupted DBMS operation — an almost-achievable goal
I’m hearing more and more stories about uninterrupted DBMS operation. There are no iron-clad assurances of zero downtime; if nothing else, you could crash your whole system yourself via some kind of application bug. Even so, it’s a worthy ideal, and near-zero downtime is a practical goal.
Uninterrupted database operations can have a lot of different aspects. The two most basic are probably:
- High availability/fail-over. If a system goes down, another one in the same data center is operational almost immediately.
- Disaster recovery. Same story, but not in the same data center, and hence not quite as immediate.
These work with single-server or scale-out systems alike. However, scale-out and the replication commonly associated with it raise additional issues in continuous database operation:
- Eventual consistency. Scale-out and replication create multiple potential new points of failure, server and network alike. Eventual consistency ensures that a single such failure doesn’t take any part of the database down.
- The use of replicas to avoid planned downtime. If you do rolling maintenance, then you can keep a set of servers with the full database up at all times.
Finally, if you really care about uninterrupted operation, you might also want to examine:
- Administrative tools and utilities. The better your tools, the better your chances of keeping your system up. That applies to anything from administrative dashboards to parallel backup functionality.
- Fencing of in-database analytic processes. If you’re going to do in-database analytics, fenced/out-of-process ones are a lot safer than the alternative.
- Online schema changes. If you change a schema in a relational DBMS, that doesn’t necessarily entail taking the database offline.
Let’s discuss some of those points below.