Evaluating cluster configurations for big data processing: an exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As data continues to grow rapidly, NoSQL clusters have been increasingly adopted to address the storage and processing demands of these large amounts of data. In parallel, cloud computing is also increasingly being adopted due to its flexibility, cost efficiency and scalability. However, evaluating and modelling NoSQL clusters present many challenges. In this work, we explore these challenges by performing a series of experiments with various configurations. The intuition is that this process is laborious and expensive and the goal of our experiments is to confirm this intuition and to identify the factors that impact the performance of a Big Data cluster. Our experiments mostly focus on three factors: data compression, data schema and cluster topology. We performed a number of experiments based on these factors and measured and compared the response times of the resulting configurations. Eventually, the outcomes of our study are encapsulated in a performance model that predicts the cluster's response time as a function of the incoming workload and evaluates the cluster's performance less costly and faster. This systematic and effortless evaluation method will facilitate the selection and migration to a better cluster as the performance and budget goals change. We use HBase as the large data processing cluster and we conduct our experiments on traffic data from a large city and on a distributed community cloud infrastructure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".