DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Nosql and Array Databases for Scientific Applications

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of Nosql and Array Databases for Scientific Applications Evaluation of NoSQL and Array Databases for Scientific Applications Lavanya Ramakrishnan, Pradeep K. Mantha, Yushu Yao, Richard S. Canon Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Berkeley, CA 94720 [lramakrishnan,pkmantha,yyao,scanon]@lbl.gov ABSTRACT Source [12]) and/or array databases. NoSQL databases ad- Scientific users are increasingly considering the use of NoSQL dress many of the needs of a data store for storing less struc- and array databases for storing metadata and data. These tured and evolving data schemas. Current implementations databases offer various advantages including support for real- of schema-less databases are based on the ideas proposed by time changing schema and performance optimizations for Amazon (Dynamo) [6] and Google (Bigtable) [3]. Similarly, specific operations. However, there is a limited understand- array databases provide performance optimizations for array ing of the strengths and weaknesses of these databases for operations. However, there is a limited understanding of the scientific applications. In this paper, we present an eval- strengths and weaknesses of these new class of databases. uation using standard benchmarks (Yahoo! Cloud Serving In this paper, we provide an evaluation of existing cloud Benchmark) and two scientific data sets. Our results indi- schema-less and array databases for scientific data use. For cate that careful understanding of the distribution of the our initial evaluation, we have selected MongoDB [11], Cas- workload as well as aspects such as client side tools and sandra [2], HBase [10], and SciDB [1, 13]. Specifically, our parameters need to be considered to get the optimal perfor- evaluation includes: mance from these databases. • A comparison of Cassandra, HBase and MongoDB us- ing the Yahoo! Cloud Serving Benchmark (YCSB) 1. INTRODUCTION • A comparison of Cassandra, SciDB and PostgresSQL Scientific discoveries for important challenges facing our using two scientific data sets society require federation or integration of data from multi- ple research groups and disciplines. The data infrastructure • Investigation of the impact of various factors impacting must be able to accommodate diverse data-types and for- performance in the context of Cassandra mats from diverse experiment facilities, models and sources. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, Today, data and metadata is primarily stored in file sys- we discuss the methodology of our evaluation and detail re- tems and in rare cases in relational databases [14]. Scalable sults in Section 3. We discuss related work and conclusions file systems are critical as an underlying software layer, but in Sections 4 and 5 respectively. these are not sufficient for user-level data management stor- age, nor do they offer an adequate interface for queries and data analyseos. Also, it is often difficult to attach schema, 2. METHODOLOGY or meaning, to the data beforehand and the schema and In this section, we describe our experiment setup including metadata tends to evolve over time. Thus, datastores need the databases and the workload and data sets. to accommodate real-time changes to the structure of the data while making the data searchable on any attribute. 2.1 NoSQL and Array Databases Cloud applications are increasingly using schema-less (also Schema-less databases are typically classified as document- referred to as Not Only SQL or NoSQL) datastores{which oriented, key-value, and graph-based. A document-oriented enable capture of semi-structured data and allow attribute- database stores, retrieves and manages semi-structured or based searches. Increasingly scientific applications are inves- document-oriented information. Key-value stores use a key- tigating the use of NoSQL databases for their needs (e.g., value pair. HBase, part of the Hadoop ecosystem and Cas- the Materials Project [9], data from the Advanced Light sandra, initially developed by Facebook are key-value stores. MongoDB, developed and supported by 10gen, is a document- oriented store. We Cassandra - 1.1.2, MongoDB - 2.4.5 and HBase - 0.20.3 for our evaluation. SciDB is an array-based database that has recently gained Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for traction for scientific data that can be represented in an ar- personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are ray model. Our selection criteria are based on applicability not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies to scientific data, feasibility, active development, and com- bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to munity support. We use SciDB 13.3 in our evalution. republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. The goal of our evaluation is not necessarily to determine Copyright 20XX ACM X-XXXXX-XX-X/XX/XX ...$15.00. the best product, but rather to understand the state of the art and the application of each class of schema-less database Workload A: Up- Mix of 50/50 reads and writes. to scientific data. date heavy work- Zipifan load 2.2 Workloads and Data Sets Workload B: Read 95/5 reads/write mix. Zipifan First, we perform a comparison using the Yahoo! Cloud mostly workload Serving Benchmark (YCSB) framework. YCSB facilitates Workload C: Read 100% read. Zipifan the performance comparisons of the new generation of cloud only data serving systems. The workload supports a number of Workload D: Read New records are inserted, and different workloads from update heavy, read heavy, read latest workload the most recently inserted only, read latest and short ranges (Table 2.3). The work- records are the most popular. load consists of 100 million records where each record is 1 (read/update/insert ratio: KB (10 fields by 100 Bytes). 95/0/5).Zipifan Second, we use two scientific data sets to compare the per- Workload E: Short Short ranges of records are formance of Cassandra and SciDB with PostgresSQL. The ranges queried, instead of individual data sets are from bioinformatics and astronomy. records. (read/update/insert The first data set consists of non-redundant (nr) protien ration: 95/0/5) Uniform sequences from bioinformatics. The database had 16 million Workload F: Read- The client will read a record, entries where each entry had the following fields: sequence modify-write modify it, and write back the id, sequence, checksum. We used the sequence id as the key. changes. (read/read-modify- The query used for our evaluation fetches all fields based on write ration: 50/50). Zipifian a sequence id. Workload G: Cus- 100% write The second data set is from astronomy. The data set tom workload contains a collection of 55K spectrums produced from sim- Workload NR Record size matching the bioin- ulation of different supernova with different input param- formatics workoad. Read only eters. Each spectrum contains 2500 wavelength steps and similar to Workload C two record types. The data set contains 275 million records. The primary key is a compound key consisting of spectrum Table 1: The table shows the configuration of the id, wavelength id and record type. The query used calcu- YCSB workloads lates the Chi-square distance between the given observed spectrum to every spectrum in the set, and returns the ID 100,000 of the spectrum that has minimal Chi-square distance. 10,000 2.3 Machines 1,000 SciDB All experiments were run on the Jesup testbed at National Cassandra Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC). Je- 100 sup is a 160 node testbed cluster, used to explore emerging 10 hardware and software technologies. The nodes consist of Transactions per second (Log scale) quad-core Intel Xeon X5550 (\Nehalem") 2.67 GHz proces- 1 sors (eight cores/node) with 24 GB of memory per node. 1 12 Number of data nodes 18,000 16,000 Figure 2: The figure shows the comparison of Cas- 14,000 sandra and SciDB with the bioinformatics data set. 12,000 Cassandra provides higher transactions/second than 10,000 Cassandra SciDB at one node. But the difference is significant HBase 8,000 MongoDB when we scale to 12 nodes. 6,000 Transactions per second 4,000 7,000 2,000 6,000 0 ABC D E F G NR 5,000 Workload 4,000 SciDB Cassandra Figure 1: The figure shows the comparison of per- 3,000 PostgreSQL 2,000 formance with different workload types (Table 2.3) Transactions per second with the different NoSQL databases. 1,000 0 1 12 Number of data nodes 3. RESULTS We evaluate the various NoSQL stores and SciDB using Figure 3: The figure shows the comparison of Cas- the YCSB benchmarks and two scientific data sets. sandra, PyCassa and PostgresSQL for the astron- omy data sets. The array-based queries give supe- 3.1 YCSB rior performance with SciDB. 3.84 M Reads 7.68 M Reads 100 100 80 80 60 1 DN 60 1 DN 6 DNs 6 DNs 12 DNs 12 DNs 40 40 Query time in seconds Query time in seconds 20 20 0 0 0.50 4 8 0.50 4 8 percentage of queries (0.5% queries of input data per thread/client) percentage of queries (0.5% queries of input data per thread/client) (a) 25% of entire data set (b) 50% of entire data set 11.53 M Reads 15.38 M Reads 100 100 80 80 60 1 DN 60 1 DN 6 DNs 6 DNs 12 DNs 12 DNs 40 40 Query time in seconds Query time in seconds 20 20 0 0 0.50 4 8 0.50 4 8 percentage of queries (0.5% queries of input data per thread/client) percentage of queries (0.5% queries of input data per thread/client) (c) 75% of entire data set (d) 100% of entire data set Figure 6: The figure compares the effects of varying database size with Cassandra-Cli tools.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Big Data Velocity in Plain English
    Big Data Velocity in Plain English John Ryan Data Warehouse Solution Architect Table of Contents The Requirement . 1 What’s the Problem? . .. 2 Components Needed . 3 Data Capture . 3 Transformation . 3 Storage and Analytics . 4 The Traditional Solution . 6 The NewSQL Based Solution . 7 NewSQL Advantage . 9 Thank You. 10 About the Author . 10 ii The Requirement The assumed requirement is the ability to capture, transform and analyse data at potentially massive velocity in real time. This involves capturing data from millions of customers or electronic sensors, and transforming and storing the results for real time analysis on dashboards. The solution must minimise latency — the delay between a real world event and it’s impact upon a dashboard, to under a second. Typical applications include: • Monitoring Machine Sensors: Using embedded sensors in industrial machines or vehicles — typically referred to as The Internet of Things (IoT) . For example Progressive Insurance use real time speed and vehicle braking data to help classify accident risk and deliver appropriate discounts. Similar technology is used by logistics giant FedEx which uses SenseAware technology to provide near real-time parcel tracking. • Fraud Detection: To assess the risk of credit card fraud prior to authorising or declining the transaction. This can be based upon a simple report of a lost or stolen card, or more likely, an analysis of aggregate spending behaviour, aligned with machine learning techniques. • Clickstream Analysis: Producing real time analysis of user web site clicks to dynamically deliver pages, recommended products or services, or deliver individually targeted advertising. Big Data: Velocity in Plain English eBook 1 What’s the Problem? The primary challenge for real time systems architects is the potentially massive throughput required which could exceed a million transactions per second.
    [Show full text]
  • PS Non-Standard Database Systems Overview
    PS Non-Standard Database Systems Overview Daniel Kocher March 2019 is document gives a brief overview on three categories of non-standard database systems (DBS) in the context of this class. For each category, we provide you with a motivation, a discussion about the key properties, a list of commonly used implementations (proprietary and open-source/freely-available), and recommendation(s) for your project. For your convenience, we also recap some relevant terms (e.g., ACID, OLTP, ...). Terminology OLTP Online transaction processing. OLTP systems are highly optimized to process (1) short queries (operating only on a small portion of the database) and (2) small transac- tions (inserting/updating few tuples per relation). Typically, OLTP includes insertions, updates, and deletions. e main focus of OLTP systems is on low response time and high throughput (in terms of transactions per second). Databases in OLTP systems are highly normalized [5]. OLAP Online analytical processing. OLAP systems analyze complex data (usually from a data warehouse). Typically, queries in an OLAP system may run for a long time (as opposed to queries in OLTP systems) and the number of transactions is usually low. Fur- thermore, typical OLAP queries are read-only and touch a large portion of the database (e.g., scan or join large tables). e main focus of OLAP systems is on low response time. Databases in OLAP systems are oen de-normalized intentionally [5]. ACID Traditional relational database systems guarantee ACID properties: – Atomicity All or no operation(s) of a transaction are reected in the database. – Consistency Isolated execution of a transaction preserves consistency of the database.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Analysis of Blockchain Platforms
    UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones August 2018 Performance Analysis of Blockchain Platforms Pradip Singh Maharjan Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Repository Citation Maharjan, Pradip Singh, "Performance Analysis of Blockchain Platforms" (2018). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 3367. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/14139888 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF BLOCKCHAIN PLATFORMS By Pradip S. Maharjan Bachelor of Computer Engineering Tribhuvan University Institute of Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, Nepal 2012 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science in Computer Science Department of Computer Science Howard R. Hughes College of Engineering The Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas August 2018 c Pradip S. Maharjan, 2018 All Rights Reserved Thesis Approval The Graduate College The University of Nevada, Las Vegas May 4, 2018 This thesis prepared by Pradip S.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating and Comparing Oracle Database Appliance Performance Updated for Oracle Database Appliance X8-2-HA
    Evaluating and Comparing Oracle Database Appliance Performance Updated for Oracle Database Appliance X8-2-HA ORACLE WHITE PAPER | JANUARY 2020 DISCLAIMER The performance results in this paper are intended to give an estimate of the overall performance of the Oracle Database Appliance X8-2-HA system. The results are not a benchmark, and cannot be used to characterize the relative performance of Oracle Database Appliance systems from one generation to another, as the workload characteristics and other environmental factors including firmware, OS, and database patches, which includes Spectre/Meltdown fixes, will vary over time. For an accurate comparison to another platform, you should run the same tests, with the same OS (if applicable) and database versions, patch levels, etc. Do not rely on older tests or benchmark runs, as changes made to the underlying platform in the interim may substantially impact results. EVALUATING AND COMPARING ORACLE DATABASE APPLIANCE PERFORMANCE Table of Contents Introduction and Executive Summary 1 Audience 2 Objective 2 Oracle Database Appliance Deployment Architecture 3 Oracle Database Appliance Configuration Templates 3 What is Swingbench? 4 Swingbench Download and Setup 4 Configuring Oracle Database Appliance for Testing 5 Configuring Oracle Database Appliance System for Testing 5 Benchmark Setup 5 Database Setup 6 Schema Setup 6 Workload Setup and Execution 10 Benchmark Results 11 Workload Performance 11 Database and Operating System Statistics 12 Average CPU Busy 12 REDO Writes 13 Transaction Rate 13 Important Considerations for Performing the Benchmark 14 Conclusion 15 Appendix A Swingbench configuration files 16 Appendix B The loadgen.pl file 19 Appendix C The generate_awr.sh script 24 References 25 EVALUATING AND COMPARING ORACLE DATABASE APPLIANCE PERFORMANCE Introduction and Executive Summary Oracle Database Appliance X8-2-HA is a highly available Oracle database system.
    [Show full text]
  • 60-539: Emerging Non-Traditional Database Systems (Data Warehousing and Mining)
    60-539: Emerging non-traditional database systems (Data Warehousing and Mining): sdb1 warehouse sdb2 sdb3 Dr. C.I. Ezeife School of Computer Science, University of Windsor, Canada. Email: [email protected] 60-539 Dr. C.I. Ezeife @c 2021 1 PART I (DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW) DBMS (PART 1) OVERVIEW Components of a DBMS DBMS Data model Data Definition and Manipulation Language File Organization Techniques Query Optimization and Evaluation Facility Database Design and Tuning Transaction Processing Concurrency Control Database Security and Integrity Issues 60-539 Dr. C.I. Ezeife © 2021 2 DBMS OVERVIEW(What are?) What is a database? : It is a collection of data, typically describing the activities of one or more related organizations, e.g., a University, an airline reservation or a banking database. What is a DBMS?: A DBMS is a set of software for creating, querying, managing and keeping databases. Examples of DBMS’s are DB2, Informix, Sybase, Oracle, MYSQL, Microsoft Access (relational). Alternative to Databases: Storing all data for university, airline and banking information in separate files and writing separate program for each data file. What is a Data Warehouse?:A subject-oriented, historical, non- volatile database integrating a number of data sources. What is Data Mining?:Is data analysis for finding interesting trends or patterns in large dataset to guide decisions about future activities. 60-539 Dr. C.I. Ezeife © 2021 3 DBMS OVERVIEW(Evolution of Information Technology) 1960s and earlier: Primitive file processing: data are collected in files and manipulated with programs in Cobol and other languages. Disadv.: any change in storage structure of data requires changing the program (i.e., no logical or physical data independence).
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Ledger Technology-Based Databases
    future internet Article A Survey of Ledger Technology-Based Databases Dénes László Fekete 1 and Attila Kiss 1,2,* 1 Department of Information Systems, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, 1117 Budapest, Hungary; [email protected] 2 Department of Informatics, J. Selye University, 945 01 Komárno, Slovakia * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The spread of crypto-currencies globally has led to blockchain technology receiving greater attention in recent times. This paper focuses more broadly on the uses of ledger databases as a traditional database manager. Ledger databases will be examined within the parameters of two categories. The first of these are Centralized Ledger Databases (CLD)-based Centralised Ledger Technology (CLT), of which LedgerDB will be discussed. The second of these are Permissioned Blockchain Technology-based Decentralised Ledger Technology (DLT) where Hyperledger Fabric, FalconDB, BlockchainDB, ChainifyDB, BigchainDB, and Blockchain Relational Database will be examined. The strengths and weaknesses of the reviewed technologies will be discussed, alongside a comparison of the mentioned technologies. Keywords: ledger technology; permissioned blockchain; centralised ledger database 1. Introduction Citation: Fekete, D.L.; Kiss, A. A In recent years, we have been witness to the rise of multiple new ledger technologies. Survey of Ledger Technology-Based Since Satosi Nakamoto wrote the Bitcoin white paper [1] in 2009, many different systems Databases. Future Internet 2021, 13, that endeavour to provide decentralization and trustless collaboration have been developed 197. https://doi.org/10.3390/ based on blockchain technology. Of late, a great amount of research and academia has been fi13080197 focused on the further development and reformation of the basis of blockchain in an attempt to solve the issues that continue to arise [2–4].
    [Show full text]
  • CSE 344 Final Examination Name
    CSE 344 Final Examination Monday, December 10, 2018, 2:30-4:20 Name: Question Points Score 1 30 2 20 3 20 4 30 5 20 6 35 7 45 Total: 200 • This exam is CLOSED book and CLOSED devices. • You are allowed TWO, HAND-WRITTEN letter-size sheets with notes (both sides). • You have 110 minutes; • Answer the easy questions before you spend too much time on the more difficult ones. • Good luck! 1 CSE 344 Final Dec 10, 2018, 2:30-4:20 1 Relational Data Model 1. (30 points) You are now a Climate Scientist, and run simulations to predict future changes in the climate. Your job is to improve the simulator in order to improve the climate predictions. Every time you have a new version of the simulator, you run it, and it will generate a dataset where, for each year, it records the predicted temperature at each location of your simulated area. You analyze the results, improve the simulator, and repeat. As a good scientist, you keep the results of all simulations in a relation with the following schema: Sim(version, year, loc, temp) The data types of Version and year are integers; temp is a real number; and loc is a text. (a) (5 points) Write a SQL CREATE TABLE statement to create the Sim relation. Identify the key in Sim, and create the key in your SQL statement. Choose float and for the real number type and text for the text type. Page 2 CSE 344 Final Dec 10, 2018, 2:30-4:20 Sim(version, year, loc, temp) (b) (5 points) Simulation version 13 is wrong, due to a bug in the simulator.
    [Show full text]
  • Extending ACID Semantics to the File System
    Extending ACID Semantics to the File System CHARLES P. WRIGHT IBM T. J. Watson Research Center RICHARD SPILLANE, GOPALAN SIVATHANU, and EREZ ZADOK Stony Brook University An organization’s data is often its most valuable asset, but today’s file systems provide few facilities to ensure its safety. Databases, on the other hand, have long provided transactions. Transactions are useful because they provide atomicity, consistency, isolation, and durability (ACID). Many applications could make use of these semantics, but databases have a wide variety of non-standard interfaces. For example, applications like mail servers currently perform elaborate error handling to ensure atomicity and consistency, because it is easier than using a DBMS. A transaction-oriented programming model eliminates complex error-handling code, because failed operations can simply be aborted without side effects. We have designed a file system that exports ACID transactions to user-level applications, while preserving the ubiquitous and convenient POSIX interface. In our prototype ACID file system, called Amino, updated applications can protect arbitrary sequences of system calls within a transaction. Unmodified applications operate without any changes, but each system call is transaction protected. We also built a recoverable memory library with support for nested transactions to allow applications to keep their in-memory data structures consistent with the file system. Our performance evaluation shows that ACID semantics can be added to applications with acceptable overheads.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 17: Parallel Databases
    ChapterChapter 18:18: ParallelParallel DatabasesDatabases IntroductionIntroduction • Parallel machines are becoming quite common and affordable – Prices of microprocessors, memory and disks have dropped sharply – Recent desktop computers feature multiple processors and this trend is projected to accelerate • Databases are growing increasingly large – large volumes of transaction data are collected and stored for later analysis. – multimedia objects like images are increasingly stored in databases • Large-scale parallel database systems increasingly used for: – storing large volumes of data – processing time-consuming decision-support queries – providing high throughput for transaction processing ParallelismParallelism inin DatabasesDatabases • Data can be partitioned across multiple disks for parallel I/O. • Individual relational operations (e.g., sort, join, aggregation) can be executed in parallel – data can be partitioned and each processor can work independently on its own partition. • Queries are expressed in high level language (SQL, translated to relational algebra) – makes parallelization easier. • Different queries can be run in parallel with each other. Concurrency control takes care of conflicts. • Thus, databases naturally lend themselves to parallelism. I/OI/O ParallelismParallelism • Reduce the time required to retrieve relations from disk by partitioning • The relations on multiple disks. • Horizontal partitioning – tuples of a relation are divided among many disks such that each tuple resides on one disk. • Partitioning techniques (number of disks = n): Round-robin: Send the I th tuple inserted in the relation to disk i mod n. Hash partitioning: – Choose one or more attributes as the partitioning attributes. – Choose hash function h with range 0…n - 1 – Let i denote result of hash function h applied to the partitioning attribute value of a tuple.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Benchmark Postgresql / Mongodb Performance Benchmark Postgresql / Mongodb
    PERFORMANCE BENCHMARK POSTGRESQL / MONGODB // CONTENTS // ABOUT THIS BENCHMARK 3 Introduction 3 OnGres Ethics Policy 4 Authors 4 // EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. BENCHMARKS KEY FINDINGS 5 Transactions benchmark 5 OLTP Benchmark 6 OLAP Benchmark 6 // METHODOLOGY AND BENCHMARKS 7 Introduction and objectives 7 Benchmarks performed 7 About the technologies involved 8 Automated infrastructure 9 // TRANSACTIONS BENCHMARK 12 Benchmark description 12 MongoDB transaction limitations 14 Discussion on transaction isolation levels 14 Benchmark results 17 // OLTP BENCHMARK 25 Benchmark description 25 Initial considerations 26 Benchmark results 29 // OLAP BENCHMARK 38 Benchmark description 38 Benchmark results 45 2/46 // ABOUT THIS BENCHMARK Introduction Benchmarking is hard. Benchmarking databases, harder. Benchmarking databases that follow different approaches (relational vs document) is even harder. There are many reasons why this is true, widely discussed in the industry. Notwithstanding all these difficulties, the market demands these kinds of benchmarks. Despite the different data models that MongoDB and PostgreSQL expose, many developers and organizations face a challenge when choosing between the platforms. And while they can be compared on many fronts, performance is undoubtedly one of the main differentiators — arguably the main one. How then do you leverage an informative benchmark so that decisions can be made about the choice of a given technology, while at the same time presenting a fair arena in which the technologies compete in an apples-to-apples scenario? To fulfill these goals, this benchmark has been executed based on the following criteria: • Transparency and reproducibility. The framework that has been programmed and used to run the benchmarks is fully automated and is published as open source.
    [Show full text]
  • Hyperledger Blockchain Performance Metrics
    Hyperledger Blockchain Performance Metrics ABOUT HYPERLEDGER About This Paper Hyperledger This is the first white paper from the Hyperledger Performance and Scale Working (http://hyperledger.org/) is Group (https://wiki.hyperledger.org/groups/pswg/performance-and-scale-wg). an open source effort created The purpose of this document is to define the basic terms and key metrics to advance cross-industry that should be used to evaluate the performance of a blockchain and then blockchain technologies. communicate the results. This paper also serves as a platform-agnostic resource It is a global collaboration for technical blockchain developers and managers interested in using industry- including leaders in banking, standard nomenclature. finance, Internet of Things, While we appreciate that there may be discrete definitions for the terms “blockchain” manufacturing, supply chains, and “Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT),” for the purposes of this paper we will and technology. The Linux treat both terms synonymously and use the term “blockchain” throughout. Foundation, the nonprofit organization enabling mass This document provides some guidance on selecting and evaluating workloads. innovation through open source, We expect that refinements to these definitions and new blockchain-specific hosts Hyperledger. The Linux metrics will warrant future revisions of this document. Foundation also enables a In future documents, the Working Group plans to discuss workloads in greater worldwide developer community detail and to offer additional guidance on standard procedures and emerging to work together and share best practices for evaluating blockchain performance. To provide your feedback ideas, infrastructure, and code. and stay informed about subsequent versions of this paper, please join us in the Performance and Scale Working Group (https://wiki.hyperledger.org/groups/ pswg/performance-and-scale-wg).
    [Show full text]
  • Administration Guide Version 10.0
    Oracle® GoldenGate for Mainframe Administration Guide Version 10.0 October 2009 Administration Guide, version 10.0 Copyright © 1995, 2009 Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. This software and related documentation are provided under a license agreement containing restrictions on use and disclosure and are protected by intellectual property laws. Except as expressly permitted in your license agreement or allowed by law, you may not use, copy, reproduce, translate, broadcast, modify, license, transmit, distribute, exhibit, perform, publish, or display any part, in any form, or by any means. Reverse engineering, disassembly, or decompilation of this software, unless required by law for interoperability, is prohibited. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice and is not warranted to be error-free. If you find any errors, please report them to us in writing. If this software or related documentation is delivered to the U.S. Government or anyone licensing it on behalf of the U.S. Government, the following notice is applicable: U.S. GOVERNMENT RIGHTS Programs, software, databases, and related documentation and technical data delivered to U.S. Government customers are "commercial computer software" or "commercial technical data" pursuant to the applicable Federal Acquisition Regulation and agency-specific supplemental regulations. As such, the use, duplication, disclosure, modification, and adaptation shall be subject to the restrictions and license terms set forth in the applicable Government contract, and, to the extent applicable by the terms of the Government contract, the additional rights set forth in FAR 52.227-19, Commercial Computer Software License (December 2007). Oracle USA, Inc., 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065.
    [Show full text]