|
|
|
|
|
by frankmcsherry
3570 days ago
|
|
> The paper is frankly stupid and a great example of difference between practice and academia. it looks good because they are using a snapshot of Twitter network from 2010. We used these data and workloads because that was what GraphX used. If you take the graphs any bigger, Spark and GraphX at least couldn't handle it and just failed. They've probably gotten better in the meantime, so take that with a grain of salt. > Unlike a bunch of out of touch researchers the key concern isn't how "fast" calculations finish, but several others such as ability to reuse, fault tolerance, multi user support etc. The paper says these exact things. You have to keep reading, and it's hard I know, but for example the last paragraph of section 5 says pretty much exactly this. And, if you read the paper even more carefully, it is pretty clearly not about whether you should use these systems or not, but how you should not evaluate them (i.e. only on tasks at a scale that a laptop could do better). |
|
Thanks, that addresses my concern. I take back my comment.
But why stop at Rust implementation, there are vendors optimizing it down to FPGA. This sort of comparison is hardly meaningful.