DOCSLIB.ORG

Observations on Factors Affecting Performance of Mapreduce Based Apriori on Hadoop Cluster

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

International Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA2016) Observations on Factors Affecting Performance of MapReduce based Apriori on Hadoop Cluster Sudhakar Singh Rakhi Garg P. K. Mishra Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science Institute of Science, BHU Mahila Mahavidyalaya, BHU Institute of Science, BHU Varanasi, India Varanasi, India Varanasi, India [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract —Designing fast and scalable algorithm for mining distributed version of Apriori algorithm have been designed to frequent itemsets is always being a most eminent and promising enhance the speed and to mine large scale datasets [6-7]. problem of data mining. Apriori is one of the most broadly used These algorithms are efficient in analyzing data but not in and popular algorithm of frequent itemset mining. Designing managing large scale data. Hadoop is an excellent efficient algorithms on MapReduce framework to process and infrastructure that provides an integrated service of managing analyze big datasets is contemporary research nowadays. In this and processing excessive volumes of datasets. The core paper, we have focused on the performance of MapReduce based constituents of Hadoop are Hadoop Distributed File System Apriori on homogeneous as well as on heterogeneous Hadoop (HDFS) and MapReduce [8-9]. HDFS provides scalable and cluster. We have investigated a number of factors that fast access to its unlimited storage of data. MapReduce is a significantly affects the execution time of MapReduce based parallel programming model that provides an efficient and Apriori running on homogeneous and heterogeneous Hadoop Cluster. Factors are specific to both algorithmic and non- scalable processing of large volumes of data stored in HDFS. algorithmic improvements. Considered factors specific to An application executes as a MapReduce job on Hadoop algorithmic improvements are filtered transactions and data cluster. MapReduce provides high scalability, as a job is structures. Experimental results show that how an appropriate partitioned into a number of smaller tasks to run in parallel on data structure and filtered transactions technique drastically multiple nodes in cluster. MapReduce programming model is reduce the execution time. The non-algorithmic factors include so simplified that programmers only need to focus on speculative execution, nodes with poor performance, data locality processing data rather than on parallelism related details e.g. & distribution of data blocks, and parallelism control with input split size. We have applied strategies against these factors and data & task partition, load balancing etc. The performance of a fine tuned the relevant parameters in our particular application. MapReduce job running on Hadoop cluster can be optimized Experimental results show that if cluster specific parameters are in two ways. The first one is the algorithm specific where taken care of then there is a significant reduction in execution algorithmic optimization can be incorporated directly. The time. Also we have discussed the issues regarding MapReduce second one is the cluster specific where one can adjust some implementation of Apriori which may significantly influence the parameters of cluster configurations and input size for performance. datasets. Many techniques have been proposed to optimize the performance of Apriori algorithm on MapReduce framework. Keywords—Frequent Itemset Mining, Apriori, Heterogeneous Hadoop is designed on the implicit assumption that nodes in Hadoop Cluster; MapReduce; Big Data the cluster are homogeneous. But in practice it’s not always possible to have homogeneous nodes. Most of the laboratories I. INTRODUCTION and institutions are used to have heterogeneous machines. So it becomes essential to adopt proper strategies when running Frequent itemset mining on big data sets, is one of the MapReduce job on heterogeneous Hadoop cluster. The most contemporary research in Data Mining [1] and Big Data performance of a MapReduce job running on Hadoop cluster [2]. In order to mine intelligence from big data sets, data is greatly affected by tuning of various parameters specific to mining algorithms are being re-designed on MapReduce cluster configuration. For Apriori like CPU intensive framework to be executed on Hadoop cluster. Hadoop [3] is an algorithms, the granularity of input split may lead to a major extremely large scale and fault tolerant parallel and distributed difference in execution times. In this paper we have system for managing and processing of big data. MapReduce incorporated two algorithm specific techniques data structures is its computational framework. Big data is dumb if we don’t and filtered transactions in Apriori algorithm, which greatly have algorithm to make use of it [4]. It’s an algorithm that reduce the execution time on both homogeneous and transforms the data into valuable and precise information. heterogeneous cluster. We have investigated some factors Frequent itemset mining is one of the most important specific to cluster configuration to make the execution faster. technique of data mining. Apriori [5] is the most famous, Factors central to our discussion are speculative execution, simple and well-known algorithm for mining frequent itemsets performance of physical node versus virtual node, distribution using candidate itemsets generation. Many parallel and of data blocks, and parallelism control using input split size. © 2016 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works. Citation: S. Singh, R. Garg and P. K. Mishra, "Observations on factors affecting performance of MapReduce based Apriori on Hadoop cluster," 2016 International Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA) , Greater Noida, India, 2016, pp. 87-94. doi: 10.1109/CCAA.2016.7813695 URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7813695&isnumber=7813678 1 International Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA2016) Moreover we have also discussed the issue regarding blocks (default block size is 64 MB). Blocks are replicated MapReduce implementation of Apriori that quite possibly across multiple nodes in the cluster (default replication factor influence the execution time. We have executed the different is 3). A Hadoop cluster works on master-slave architecture in variation of MapReduce based Apriori on our local which one node is a master node and remaining nodes are heterogeneous Hadoop cluster and found that we can achieve slave nodes. Master node known as NameNode controls the faster execution by tuning the cluster specific parameters slave nodes known as DataNodes. Slave nodes hold all the without making algorithmic improvements. data blocks and perform map and reduce tasks [10]. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 A computational application runs as a MapReduce job on introduces some fundamental concepts regarding Apriori input datasets residing in HDFS of Hadoop cluster. A algorithm, Hadoop cluster and MapReduce programming MapReduce job consists of map and reduce tasks and both paradigm. Section 3 summarizes works related to optimization work on data in the form of (key, value) pairs. Map and reduce of Apriori on MapReduce framework and performance tasks are being executed by Mapper and Reducer class improvement of MapReduce job on heterogeneous clusters. respectively of MapReduce framework. An additional Experimental platform is described in section 4. Factors combiner class may also be used executing reduce task and affecting the performance of MapReduce based Apriori and known as mini reducer. There are a number of instances of strategies adopted to improve the performance along with the Mapper and Reducer running in parallel but a Reducer starts experimental results are discussed in section 5. Finally section only when all the Mapper has been completed. Mapper takes 6 concludes the paper. input as assigned datasets, process it and produces a number of (key, value) pairs as output. These (key, value) pairs are II. BASIC CONCEPTS assigned to Reducers after sorting and shuffling by MapReduce’s underlying system. Shuffling procedure A. Apriori Algorithm assigned key and list of values associated with this key to a particular Reducer. Reducer takes input as (key, list of values) Apriori is an iterative algorithm proposed by R. Agrawal pairs and produce new (key, value) pairs. Combiner works on and R. Srikant [5], which finds frequent itemsets by generating the output of Mappers of one node to reduce the data transfer candidate itemsets. Apriori name of the algorithm is based on load from Mappers to Reducers. In MapReduce framework the apriori property which states that all the subset (k-1)- only a single time communication occurs when output of itemsets of a frequent k-itemset must also be frequent [5]. Mappers are being transferred to Reducers [10]. Apriori first scans the database and count the support of Apriori is an iterative algorithm which generates frequent each item, and then checks against minimum support threshold th th k-itemsets in k iteration. Corresponding to an iteration of to generate set of frequent
Recommended publications
  • Mapreduce and Beyond

    Mapreduce and Beyond

    MapReduce and Beyond Steve Ko 1 Trivia Quiz: What’s Common? Data-intensive compung with MapReduce! 2 What is MapReduce? • A system for processing large amounts of data • Introduced by Google in 2004 • Inspired by map & reduce in Lisp • OpenSource implementaMon: Hadoop by Yahoo! • Used by many, many companies – A9.com, AOL, Facebook, The New York Times, Last.fm, Baidu.com, Joost, Veoh, etc. 3 Background: Map & Reduce in Lisp • Sum of squares of a list (in Lisp) • (map square ‘(1 2 3 4)) – Output: (1 4 9 16) [processes each record individually] 1 2 3 4 f f f f 1 4 9 16 4 Background: Map & Reduce in Lisp • Sum of squares of a list (in Lisp) • (reduce + ‘(1 4 9 16)) – (+ 16 (+ 9 (+ 4 1) ) ) – Output: 30 [processes set of all records in a batch] 4 9 16 f f f returned iniMal 1 5 14 30 5 Background: Map & Reduce in Lisp • Map – processes each record individually • Reduce – processes (combines) set of all records in a batch 6 What Google People Have NoMced • Keyword search Map – Find a keyword in each web page individually, and if it is found, return the URL of the web page Reduce – Combine all results (URLs) and return it • Count of the # of occurrences of each word Map – Count the # of occurrences in each web page individually, and return the list of <word, #> Reduce – For each word, sum up (combine) the count • NoMce the similariMes? 7 What Google People Have NoMced • Lots of storage + compute cycles nearby • Opportunity – Files are distributed already! (GFS) – A machine can processes its own web pages (map) CPU CPU CPU CPU CPU CPU CPU CPU
  • Integrating Crowdsourcing with Mapreduce for AI-Hard Problems ∗

    Integrating Crowdsourcing with Mapreduce for AI-Hard Problems ∗

    Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence CrowdMR: Integrating Crowdsourcing with MapReduce for AI-Hard Problems ∗ Jun Chen, Chaokun Wang, and Yiyuan Bai School of Software, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, P.R. China [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract In this paper, we propose CrowdMR — an extended MapReduce model based on crowdsourcing to handle AI- Large-scale distributed computing has made available hard problems effectively. Different from pure crowdsourc- the resources necessary to solve “AI-hard” problems. As a result, it becomes feasible to automate the process- ing solutions, CrowdMR introduces confidence into MapRe- ing of such problems, but accuracy is not very high due duce. For a common AI-hard problem like classification to the conceptual difficulty of these problems. In this and recognition, any instance of that problem will usually paper, we integrated crowdsourcing with MapReduce be assigned a confidence value by machine learning algo- to provide a scalable innovative human-machine solu- rithms. CrowdMR only distributes the low-confidence in- tion to AI-hard problems, which is called CrowdMR. In stances which are the troublesome cases to human as HITs CrowdMR, the majority of problem instances are auto- via crowdsourcing. This strategy dramatically reduces the matically processed by machine while the troublesome number of HITs that need to be answered by human. instances are redirected to human via crowdsourcing. To showcase the usability of CrowdMR, we introduce an The results returned from crowdsourcing are validated example of gender classification using CrowdMR. For the in the form of CAPTCHA (Completely Automated Pub- lic Turing test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart) instances whose confidence values are lower than a given before adding to the output.
  • Mapreduce: Simplified Data Processing On

    Mapreduce: Simplified Data Processing On

    MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat [email protected], [email protected] Google, Inc. Abstract given day, etc. Most such computations are conceptu- ally straightforward. However, the input data is usually MapReduce is a programming model and an associ- large and the computations have to be distributed across ated implementation for processing and generating large hundreds or thousands of machines in order to finish in data sets. Users specify a map function that processes a a reasonable amount of time. The issues of how to par- key/value pair to generate a set of intermediate key/value allelize the computation, distribute the data, and handle pairs, and a reduce function that merges all intermediate failures conspire to obscure the original simple compu- values associated with the same intermediate key. Many tation with large amounts of complex code to deal with real world tasks are expressible in this model, as shown these issues. in the paper. As a reaction to this complexity, we designed a new Programs written in this functional style are automati- abstraction that allows us to express the simple computa- cally parallelized and executed on a large cluster of com- tions we were trying to perform but hides the messy de- modity machines. The run-time system takes care of the tails of parallelization, fault-tolerance, data distribution details of partitioning the input data, scheduling the pro- and load balancing in a library. Our abstraction is in- gram's execution across a set of machines, handling ma- spired by the map and reduce primitives present in Lisp chine failures, and managing the required inter-machine and many other functional languages.
  • Overview of Mapreduce and Spark

    Overview of Mapreduce and Spark

    Overview of MapReduce and Spark Mirek Riedewald This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Key Learning Goals • How many tasks should be created for a job running on a cluster with w worker machines? • What is the main difference between Hadoop MapReduce and Spark? • For a given problem, how many Map tasks, Map function calls, Reduce tasks, and Reduce function calls does MapReduce create? • How can we tell if a MapReduce program aggregates data from different Map calls before transmitting it to the Reducers? • How can we tell if an aggregation function in Spark aggregates locally on an RDD partition before transmitting it to the next downstream operation? 2 Key Learning Goals • Why do input and output type have to be the same for a Combiner? • What data does a single Mapper receive when a file is the input to a MapReduce job? And what data does the Mapper receive when the file is added to the distributed file cache? • Does Spark use the equivalent of a shared- memory programming model? 3 Introduction • MapReduce was proposed by Google in a research paper. Hadoop MapReduce implements it as an open- source system. – Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat. MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters. OSDI'04: Sixth Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation, San Francisco, CA, December 2004 • Spark originated in academia—at UC Berkeley—and was proposed as an improvement of MapReduce. – Matei Zaharia, Mosharaf Chowdhury, Michael J.
  • Finding Connected Components in Huge Graphs with Mapreduce

    Finding Connected Components in Huge Graphs with Mapreduce

    CC-MR - Finding Connected Components in Huge Graphs with MapReduce Thomas Seidl, Brigitte Boden, and Sergej Fries Data Management and Data Exploration Group RWTH Aachen University, Germany fseidl, boden, [email protected] Abstract. The detection of connected components in graphs is a well- known problem arising in a large number of applications including data mining, analysis of social networks, image analysis and a lot of other related problems. In spite of the existing very efficient serial algorithms, this problem remains a subject of research due to increasing data amounts produced by modern information systems which cannot be handled by single workstations. Only highly parallelized approaches on multi-core- servers or computer clusters are able to deal with these large-scale data sets. In this work we present a solution for this problem for distributed memory architectures, and provide an implementation for the well-known MapReduce framework developed by Google. Our algorithm CC-MR sig- nificantly outperforms the existing approaches for the MapReduce frame- work in terms of the number of necessary iterations, communication costs and execution runtime, as we show in our experimental evaluation on synthetic and real-world data. Furthermore, we present a technique for accelerating our implementation for datasets with very heterogeneous component sizes as they often appear in real data sets. 1 Introduction Web and social graphs, chemical compounds, protein and co-author networks, XML databases - graph structures are a very natural way for representing com- plex data and therefore appear almost everywhere in data processing. Knowledge extraction from these data often relies (at least as a preprocessing step) on the problem of finding connected components within these graphs.
  • Large-Scale Graph Mining @ Google NY

    Large-Scale Graph Mining @ Google NY

    Large-scale Graph Mining @ Google NY Vahab Mirrokni Google Research New York, NY DIMACS Workshop Large-scale graph mining Many applications Friend suggestions Recommendation systems Security Advertising Benefits Big data available Rich structured information New challenges Process data efficiently Privacy limitations Google NYC Large-scale graph mining Develop a general-purpose library of graph mining tools for XXXB nodes and XT edges via MapReduce+DHT(Flume), Pregel, ASYMP Goals: • Develop scalable tools (Ranking, Pairwise Similarity, Clustering, Balanced Partitioning, Embedding, etc) • Compare different algorithms/frameworks • Help product groups use these tools across Google in a loaded cluster (clients in Search, Ads, Youtube, Maps, Social) • Fundamental Research (Algorithmic Foundations and Hybrid Algorithms/System Research) Outline Three perspectives: • Part 1: Application-inspired Problems • Algorithms for Public/Private Graphs • Part 2: Distributed Optimization for NP-Hard Problems • Distributed algorithms via composable core-sets • Part 3: Joint systems/algorithms research • MapReduce + Distributed HashTable Service Problems Inspired by Applications Part 1: Why do we need scalable graph mining? Stories: • Algorithms for Public/Private Graphs, • How to solve a problem for each node on a public graph+its own private network • with Chierchetti,Epasto,Kumar,Lattanzi,M: KDD’15 • Ego-net clustering • How to use graph structures and improve collaborative filtering • with EpastoLattanziSebeTaeiVerma, Ongoing • Local random walks for conductance
  • Mapreduce Indexing Strategies: Studying Scalability and Efficiency ⇑ Richard Mccreadie , Craig Macdonald, Iadh Ounis

    Mapreduce Indexing Strategies: Studying Scalability and Efficiency ⇑ Richard Mccreadie , Craig Macdonald, Iadh Ounis

    Information Processing and Management xxx (2011) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Information Processing and Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/infoproman MapReduce indexing strategies: Studying scalability and efficiency ⇑ Richard McCreadie , Craig Macdonald, Iadh Ounis Department of Computing Science, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom article info abstract Article history: In Information Retrieval (IR), the efficient indexing of terabyte-scale and larger corpora is Received 11 February 2010 still a difficult problem. MapReduce has been proposed as a framework for distributing Received in revised form 17 August 2010 data-intensive operations across multiple processing machines. In this work, we provide Accepted 19 December 2010 a detailed analysis of four MapReduce indexing strategies of varying complexity. Moreover, Available online xxxx we evaluate these indexing strategies by implementing them in an existing IR framework, and performing experiments using the Hadoop MapReduce implementation, in combina- Keywords: tion with several large standard TREC test corpora. In particular, we examine the efficiency MapReduce of the indexing strategies, and for the most efficient strategy, we examine how it scales Indexing Efficiency with respect to corpus size, and processing power. Our results attest to both the impor- Scalability tance of minimising data transfer between machines for IO intensive tasks like indexing, Hadoop and the suitability of the per-posting list MapReduce indexing strategy, in particular for indexing at a terabyte-scale. Hence, we conclude that MapReduce is a suitable framework for the deployment of large-scale indexing. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The Web is the largest known document repository, and poses a major challenge for Information Retrieval (IR) systems, such as those used by Web search engines or Web IR researchers.
  • Mapreduce Basics

    Mapreduce Basics

    Chapter 2 MapReduce Basics The only feasible approach to tackling large-data problems today is to divide and conquer, a fundamental concept in computer science that is introduced very early in typical undergraduate curricula. The basic idea is to partition a large problem into smaller sub-problems. To the extent that the sub-problems are independent [5], they can be tackled in parallel by different workers| threads in a processor core, cores in a multi-core processor, multiple processors in a machine, or many machines in a cluster. Intermediate results from each individual worker are then combined to yield the final output.1 The general principles behind divide-and-conquer algorithms are broadly applicable to a wide range of problems in many different application domains. However, the details of their implementations are varied and complex. For example, the following are just some of the issues that need to be addressed: • How do we break up a large problem into smaller tasks? More specifi- cally, how do we decompose the problem so that the smaller tasks can be executed in parallel? • How do we assign tasks to workers distributed across a potentially large number of machines (while keeping in mind that some workers are better suited to running some tasks than others, e.g., due to available resources, locality constraints, etc.)? • How do we ensure that the workers get the data they need? • How do we coordinate synchronization among the different workers? • How do we share partial results from one worker that is needed by an- other? • How do we accomplish all of the above in the face of software errors and hardware faults? 1We note that promising technologies such as quantum or biological computing could potentially induce a paradigm shift, but they are far from being sufficiently mature to solve real world problems.
  • Mapreduce: a Major Step Backwards - the Database Column

    Mapreduce: a Major Step Backwards - the Database Column

    8/27/2014 MapReduce: A major step backwards - The Database Column This is Google's cache of http://databasecolumn.vertica.com/2008/01/mapreduce_a_major_step_back.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Sep 27, 2009 00:24:13 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more These search terms are highlighted: search These terms only appear in links pointing to this Text­only version page: hl en&safe off&q The Database Column A multi-author blog on database technology and innovation. MapReduce: A major step backwards By David DeWitt on January 17, 2008 4:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (44) | TrackBacks (1) [Note: Although the system attributes this post to a single author, it was written by David J. DeWitt and Michael Stonebraker] On January 8, a Database Column reader asked for our views on new distributed database research efforts, and we'll begin here with our views on MapReduce. This is a good time to discuss it, since the recent trade press has been filled with news of the revolution of so-called "cloud computing." This paradigm entails harnessing large numbers of (low-end) processors working in parallel to solve a computing problem. In effect, this suggests constructing a data center by lining up a large number of "jelly beans" rather than utilizing a much smaller number of high-end servers. For example, IBM and Google have announced plans to make a 1,000 processor cluster available to a few select universities to teach students how to program such clusters using a software tool called MapReduce [1].
  • Matlab-To-Map Reduce Automation

    Matlab-To-Map Reduce Automation

    International Journal of Electrical, Electronics and Data Communication, ISSN: 2320-2084 Volume-2, Issue-6, June-2014 M2M AUTOMATION: MATLAB-TO-MAP REDUCE AUTOMATION 1ARCHANA C S, 2JANANI K, 3NALINI B S, 4POOJA KRISHNAN, 5SAVITA K SHETTY 1,2,3,4M.S.Ramaiah Institute of Technology (Autonomous Institute, Affiliated to VTU), 5Guide E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract- MapReduce is a very popular parallel programming model for cloud computing platforms, and has become an effective method for processing massive data by using a cluster of computers. Program language -to-MapReduce Automator is a possible solution to help traditional programmers easily deploy an application to cloud systems through translating sequential codes to MapReduce codes.M2M Automation mainly focuses on automating numerical computations by using hadoop at the back end. M2M automates Hadoop, for faster execution of Matlab commands using MapReduce code. Keywords- Cloud computing, Hadoop, MapReduce, Matlab I. INTRODUCTION advantages include conveniences, robustness, and scalability. The basic idea of MapReduce is to split Nowadays, the volume of data is growing at an the large input data set into many small pieces and unprecedented rate. For the purpose of processing assigned small task to different devices. The process very large amounts of data, Google developed a of MapReduce includes two major parts, Map software framework called MapReduce, to support function and Reduce function. The input files will large distributed applications using a large number of be automatically split and copied to different computers, collectively referred to as a cluster. computing nodes.
  • Mapreduce: a Flexible Data Processing Tool

    Mapreduce: a Flexible Data Processing Tool

    contributed articles DOI:10.1145/1629175.1629198 of MapReduce has been used exten- MapReduce advantages over parallel databases sively outside of Google by a number of organizations.10,11 include storage-system independence and To help illustrate the MapReduce fine-grain fault tolerance for large jobs. programming model, consider the problem of counting the number of by JEFFREY DEAN AND SaNjay GHEMawat occurrences of each word in a large col- lection of documents. The user would write code like the following pseudo- code: MapReduce: map(String key, String value): // key: document name // value: document contents for each word w in value: A Flexible EmitIntermediate(w, “1”); reduce(String key, Iterator values): // key: a word Data // values: a list of counts int result = 0; for each v in values: result += ParseInt(v); Processing Emit(AsString(result)); The map function emits each word plus an associated count of occurrences (just `1' in this simple example). The re- Tool duce function sums together all counts emitted for a particular word. MapReduce automatically paral- lelizes and executes the program on a large cluster of commodity machines. The runtime system takes care of the details of partitioning the input data, MAPREDUCE IS A programming model for processing scheduling the program’s execution and generating large data sets.4 Users specify a across a set of machines, handling machine failures, and managing re- map function that processes a key/value pair to quired inter-machine communication. generate a set of intermediate key/value pairs and MapReduce allows programmers with a reduce function that merges all intermediate no experience with parallel and dis- tributed systems to easily utilize the re- values associated with the same intermediate key.
  • Scaling to Build the Consolidated Audit Trail

    Scaling to Build the Consolidated Audit Trail

    Scaling to Build the Consolidated Audit Trail: A Financial Services Application of Google Cloud Bigtable Neil Palmer, Michael Sherman, Yingxia Wang, Sebastian Just (neil.palmer;michael.sherman;yingxia.wang;sebastian.just)@fisglobal.com FIS Abstract Google Cloud Bigtable is a fully managed, high-performance, extremely scalable NoSQL database service offered through the industry-standard, open-source Apache HBase API, powered by Bigtable. The Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) is a massive, government-mandated database that will track every equities and options market event in the US financial industry over a six-year period. We consider Google Cloud Bigtable in the context of CAT, and perform a series of experiments measuring the speed and scalability of Cloud Bigtable. We find that Google Cloud Bigtable scales well and will be able to meet the requirements of CAT. Additionally, we discuss how Google Cloud Bigtable fits into the larger full technology stack fo the CAT platform. 1 Background 1.1 Introduction Google Cloud Bigtable1 is the latest formerly-internal Google But the step in between is the most challenging aspect of building technology to be opened to the public through Google Cloud Platform CAT: taking a huge amount of raw data from broker-dealers and stock [1] [2]. We undertook an analysis of the capabilities of Google Cloud exchanges and turning it into something useful for market regulators. Bigtable, specifically to see if Bigtable would fit into a proof-of-concept system for the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) [3]. In this whitepaper, The core part of converting this mass of raw market events into we provide some context, explain the experiments we ran on Bigtable, something that regulators can leverage is presenting it in a logical, and share the results of our experiments.