The next 2 weeks are pretty tight for me. I'll try to take a look at
the API and send some comments as soon as I am able.
On Mar 23, 2009, at 8:33 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Yes, I think you're right -- making a "schema" for the datastore
> might be quite easy. I'm on travel all this week and likely won't
> be able to look into this stuff -- can you guys post a proposal and
> we can dive into it from that angle?
> On Mar 22, 2009, at 6:48 AM, Mike Dubman wrote:
>> Hello guys,
>> I`m not sure if we should preserve current DB schema, from one
>> simple reason - datastore is an object oriented storage and have
>> different rules and techniques then rdbms.
>> The basic storage unit in the datastore is an object which can be
>> saved, loaded and queried.
>> (hadoop is based on the same principles, but open source.)
>> It seems that DB model for mtt over datastore should not be complex
>> at all. The current mtt db schema is mostly optimized for specific
>> queries dictated by web UI. Datastore creates indexes
>> automatically, based on submitted queries history.
>> I suggest we discuss/exchange db layout proposals by emails and
>> when we get to some general understanding how it should look like -
>> we switch to telepresence.
>> Also, It seems not problem at all to get datastore access for
>> existing gmail account. You get 500MB quota for storage. It takes
>> 5min to start using it.
>> Here is some short info for datastore API:
>> - howto submit data model to datastore
>> - howto save, load, query
>> please comment.
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Jeff Squyres <jsquyres_at_[hidden]>
>> On Mar 20, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Josh Hursey wrote:
>> Yeah I think this sounds like a good way to move forward with this
>> work. The database schema is pretty complex. If you need help on the
>> database side of things let me know.
>> To get started, would it be useful to have a meeting over the phone/
>> telepresence to design the datastore layout? This gives us an
>> opportunity to start from a blank slate with regards to the
>> datastore, so it may be useful brainstorm a bit beforehand.
>> Yes, it probably would. My understanding of hadoop (which is very
>> highlevel) is that just dump everything in without too much concern
>> about the structure / "schema". But I could be wrong on that.
>> The Google Apps account is under my personal Google account, so I'm
>> reluctant to use it. I think the reason it took so long for me, was
>> because when I originally signed up it was in limited beta. I think
>> the approval time is much shorter now (maybe a day?), and we can make
>> an openmpi or mtt account that we can use.
>> With regard to Hadoop, I don't think that IU has a set of machines
>> that would work, but I can ask around. We could always try Hadoop on
>> a single machine if people wanted to play around with data querying/
>> I don't have a strong preference either way, but Google Apps may
>> provide us with a lower overhead solution for the long run even
>> though it costs $$.
>> It looks like there is a set that you can use for free. When you
>> go over one of several metrics (CPU hours/day, storage, bandwidth
>> in, bandwidth out, etc.), then you have to start paying. But even
>> with that, the costs look *quite* reasonable and should be easily
>> covered by the combined Open MPI organizations (I'm talking
>> hundreds of dollars here, not tens of thousands).
>> Jeff Squyres
>> Cisco Systems
>> mtt-devel mailing list
>> mtt-devel mailing list
> Jeff Squyres
> Cisco Systems
> mtt-devel mailing list