DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluating Foundationdb As a Replacement for Mongodb

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluating Foundationdb As a Replacement for Mongodb Edvard Viggaklev Bakken Edvard Viggaklev Bakken Viggaklev Edvard Evaluating FoundationDB as a replacement for MongoDB An emerging NOSQL system with ACID transactions at its core Master’s thesis in Computer Science Master’s thesis Master’s Supervisor: Svein Erik Bratsberg May 2019 Evaluating FoundationDB as a replacement for MongoDB for as a replacement FoundationDB Evaluating NTNU Engineering Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Faculty of Information Technology and Electrical Technology of Information Faculty Norwegian University of Science and Technology of Science University Norwegian Edvard Viggaklev Bakken Evaluating FoundationDB as a replacement for MongoDB An emerging NOSQL system with ACID transactions at its core Master’s thesis in Computer Science Supervisor: Svein Erik Bratsberg May 2019 Norwegian University of Science and Technology Faculty of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering Department of Computer Science Abstract Is it possible to replace several different database types with a single database? The newly open-sourced Founda- tionDB promises just that, without compromising on integrity or performance. It claims to provide a minimalist storage engine, with strong guarantees, that can be molded to fit any data model. It could possibly reduce the complexity and costs of any large project, by acting as a single replacement for several systems at once. In the fall of 2018, FoundationDB released a plugin, the Document Layer, that claims to act as a plug-and-play replacement for MongoDB in existing applications. This thesis examines the architecture and features of FoundationDB and the Document Layer, uncovering their strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, the system is compared to MongoDB, a well-established and popular NOSQL database. Preliminary benchmarks are performed, and the results are used to guide the creation of a cus- tom benchmarking tool, specialized for the two systems. The intention is to evaluate FoundationDB’s potential as a replacement for existing systems. The examination shows that FoundationDB provides a highly scalable and robust key-value store, stripped of supplemental features. It has fully ACID-compliant transactions, providing much stronger guarantees than most competitors, including MongoDB. FoundationDB exposes an extensive API, allowing users to tailor the system to their needs. However, the newly released plugin is deemed not mature enough to replace MongoDB. Performance results were somewhat disappointing, and a wide range of benchmarking workloads revealed flaws that must be resolved before the Document Layer can be considered as a true competitor. i Sammendrag Er det mulig a˚ erstatte flere databasetyper med en´ enkelt database? FoundationDB, som nylig ble sluppet som apen˚ kildekode, lover a˚ tilby akkurat dette, uten a˚ matte˚ ofre integritet eller ytelse. Den past˚ ar˚ a˚ kunne levere en minimalistisk databasemotor, med sterke garantier for palitelige˚ transaksjoner, som kan tilpasses enhver data- modell. Den kan potensielt redusere kompleksiteten og kostnadene i ethvert stort prosjekt, ved a˚ fungere som en samlet erstatning for flere systemer pa˚ en gang. Høsten 2018 lanserte FoundationDB en utvidelse til databasen, FoundationDB Document Layer, som skal kunne være en ”plug-and-play”-erstatning for MongoDB i eksisterende systemer. Denne masteroppgaven undersøker akitekturen og nøkkeltrekkene ved FoundationDB og Document Layer, for a˚ avdekke deres sterke og svake sider. Systemet sammenlignes med MongoDB, en veletablert og populær NOSQL- database. Det gjennomføres innledende tester, og resultatene benyttes i utviklingen av et spesialisert test-verktøy for de to systemene. Intensjonen er a˚ evaluere FoundationDB sitt potensiale som en erstatning for eksisterende systemer. Undersøkelsen viser at FoundationDB tilbyr en robust og skalerbar key-value-database, uten unødvendig ekstra funksjonalitet. Den har transaksjoner som oppfyller ACID-kravene, noe som gir sterkere garantier enn mange andre utfordrere, inkludert MongoDB. FoundationDB tilbyr et ekstensivt API som tillater brukere a˚ tilpasse systemet til deres behov. Den nylig lanserte utvidelsen virker dog ikke a˚ være moden nok til a˚ erstatte MongoDB. Ytelses- tester avslørte noe skuffende resultater, og det ble oppdaget flere feil og mangler som ma˚ utbedres før Document Layer kan anses som en reell utfordrer. ii Preface This Masters Thesis was written for the Department of Computer Science (IDI) at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), as the final deliverable for the Master of Science in Computer Science program. The research was conducted in the spring of 2019 by Edvard Viggaklev Bakken, under the supervision of Svein Erik Bratsberg. The thesis builds upon a preliminary, exploratory project, which was completed in December 2018. Acknowledgements First of all, I’d like to thank my supervisor Svein Erik Bratsberg for his kind and valuable assistance throughout this project. He kept me on the right track when the volatility of young, emerging technologies attempted to derail this project more than once. I’d also like to thank Abakus, the student union for Computer Science and Communication Technology; they’ve created a wonderful social environment for their students, and helped me persevere throughout this degree. I’d like to give extra thanks to the Web Committee, which taught me everything I know about programming. Finally, I’d like to thank my family, and the friends I’ve made along the way. iii iv Contents Abstract i Sammendrag ii Preface iii Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents v List of Tables viii List of Figures viii Glossary and abbreviations ix 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Motivation............................................... 1 1.2 Research goals ............................................ 2 1.3 Caveats ................................................ 2 1.4 Structure of thesis........................................... 2 2 Background 3 2.1 Background theory and definitions.................................. 3 2.1.1 Transactions ......................................... 3 2.1.2 The CAP theorem ...................................... 4 2.2 NOSQL systems ........................................... 4 2.2.1 Categories of NOSQL databases............................... 5 2.3 Document stores ........................................... 5 3 Foundation DB 7 3.1 History ................................................ 7 3.1.1 Early beginnings and mission ................................ 7 3.1.2 Acquisition by Apple..................................... 7 3.1.3 Re-release of the software as an open source project .................... 8 3.1.4 Technical developments ................................... 8 3.2 Architecture.............................................. 8 3.2.1 Client............................................. 10 3.2.2 Distributed key-value store.................................. 10 3.3 Features................................................ 12 3.3.1 The foundation........................................ 12 3.3.2 Operations, concurrency and performance.......................... 12 3.3.3 Fault tolerance ........................................ 12 3.4 Anti-features and drawbacks..................................... 13 3.4.1 Excluded features....................................... 13 3.4.2 Technical issues ....................................... 13 3.5 Current limitations .......................................... 13 3.6 Layers in FoundationDB ....................................... 13 3.6.1 The idea behind layers.................................... 14 3.6.2 Capabilities of layers..................................... 14 3.6.3 Design and implementation ................................. 14 3.6.3.1 Example of data model mapping ......................... 15 3.6.3.2 Example of a simple index implementation.................... 16 3.7 FoundationDB Document Layer ................................... 16 v 3.7.1 Overview........................................... 16 3.7.2 Key differences to MongoDB ................................ 17 3.7.3 Deployment and usage.................................... 17 4 MongoDB 19 4.1 What is MongoDB?.......................................... 19 4.2 Key features.............................................. 19 4.2.1 Structures and query operations ............................... 19 4.2.2 Scalability and availability.................................. 20 4.2.3 Storage engines........................................ 20 4.2.4 Transactions ......................................... 20 4.3 Comparing MongoDB and FoundationDB.............................. 21 5 Preliminary benchmarks 23 5.1 FoundationDB’s built-in test framework............................... 23 5.1.1 Drawbacks .......................................... 23 5.1.2 Benefits............................................ 24 5.1.3 Method............................................ 24 5.2 YCSB................................................. 24 5.2.1 Standard workloads...................................... 25 5.2.2 Configuration, installation and application versions..................... 25 5.2.3 Benchmarking FoundationDB................................ 26 5.2.4 Benchmarking MongoDB .................................. 26 5.2.5 Benchmarking MongoDB with stricter write concern.................... 26 5.2.6 Benchmarking FoundationDB Document Layer via MongoDB............... 27 6 Results of preliminary tests 29 6.1 Integrated test suite.......................................... 29 6.2 YCSB benchmarks .........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Opinionated Guide to Technology Frontiers
    TECHNOLOGY RADARVOL. 21 An opinionated guide to technology frontiers thoughtworks.com/radar #TWTechRadar Rebecca Martin Fowler Bharani Erik Evan Parsons (CTO) (Chief Scientist) Subramaniam Dörnenburg Bottcher Fausto Hao Ian James Jonny CONTRIBUTORS de la Torre Xu Cartwright Lewis LeRoy The Technology Radar is prepared by the ThoughtWorks Technology Advisory Board — This edition of the ThoughtWorks Technology Radar is based on a meeting of the Technology Advisory Board in San Francisco in October 2019 Ketan Lakshminarasimhan Marco Mike Neal Padegaonkar Sudarshan Valtas Mason Ford Ni Rachel Scott Shangqi Zhamak Wang Laycock Shaw Liu Dehghani TECHNOLOGY RADAR | 2 © ThoughtWorks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ABOUT RADAR AT THE RADAR A GLANCE ThoughtWorkers are passionate about ADOPT technology. We build it, research it, test it, 1 open source it, write about it, and constantly We feel strongly that the aim to improve it — for everyone. Our industry should be adopting mission is to champion software excellence these items. We use them and revolutionize IT. We create and share when appropriate on our the ThoughtWorks Technology Radar in projects. HOLD ASSESS support of that mission. The ThoughtWorks TRIAL Technology Advisory Board, a group of senior technology leaders at ThoughtWorks, 2 TRIAL ADOPT creates the Radar. They meet regularly to ADOPT Worth pursuing. It’s 108 discuss the global technology strategy for important to understand how 96 ThoughtWorks and the technology trends TRIAL to build up this capability. ASSESS 1 that significantly impact our industry. Enterprises can try this HOLD 2 technology on a project that The Radar captures the output of the 3 can handle the risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Introduction and Motivation Theoretical Foundations Distributed Programming Languages Distributed Operating Systems Distributed Communication Distributed Data Management Reliability Applications Conclusions Appendix Distributed Operating Systems Key issues Communication primitives Naming and protection Resource management Fault tolerance Services: file service, print service, process service, terminal service, file service, mail service, boot service, gateway service Distributed operating systems vs. network operating systems Commercial and research prototypes Wiselow, Galaxy, Amoeba, Clouds, and Mach Distributed File Systems A file system is a subsystem of an operating system whose purpose is to provide long-term storage. Main issues: Merge of file systems Protection Naming and name service Caching Writing policy Research prototypes: UNIX United, Coda, Andrew (AFS), Frangipani, Sprite, Plan 9, DCE/DFS, and XFS Commercial: Amazon S3, Google Cloud Storage, Microsoft Azure, SWIFT (OpenStack) Distributed Shared Memory A distributed shared memory is a shared memory abstraction what is implemented on a loosely coupled system. Distributed shared memory. Focus 24: Stumm and Zhou's Classification Central-server algorithm (nonmigrating and nonreplicated): central server (Client) Sends a data request to the central server. (Central server) Receives the request, performs data access and sends a response. (Client) Receives the response. Focus 24 (Cont’d) Migration algorithm (migrating and non- replicated): single-read/single-write (Client) If the needed data object is not local, determines the location and then sends a request. (Remote host) Receives the request and then sends the object. (Client) Receives the response and then accesses the data object (read and /or write). Focus 24 (Cont’d) Read-replication algorithm (migrating and replicated): multiple-read/single-write (Client) If the needed data object is not local, determines the location and sends a request.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning Key-Value Store Design
    Learning Key-Value Store Design Stratos Idreos, Niv Dayan, Wilson Qin, Mali Akmanalp, Sophie Hilgard, Andrew Ross, James Lennon, Varun Jain, Harshita Gupta, David Li, Zichen Zhu Harvard University ABSTRACT We introduce the concept of design continuums for the data Key-Value Stores layout of key-value stores. A design continuum unifies major Machine Databases K V K V … K V distinct data structure designs under the same model. The Table critical insight and potential long-term impact is that such unifying models 1) render what we consider up to now as Learning Data Structures fundamentally different data structures to be seen as \views" B-Tree Table of the very same overall design space, and 2) allow \seeing" Graph LSM new data structure designs with performance properties that Store Hash are not feasible by existing designs. The core intuition be- hind the construction of design continuums is that all data Performance structures arise from the very same set of fundamental de- Update sign principles, i.e., a small set of data layout design con- Data Trade-offs cepts out of which we can synthesize any design that exists Access Patterns in the literature as well as new ones. We show how to con- Hardware struct, evaluate, and expand, design continuums and we also Cloud costs present the first continuum that unifies major data structure Read Memory designs, i.e., B+tree, Btree, LSM-tree, and LSH-table. Figure 1: From performance trade-offs to data structures, The practical benefit of a design continuum is that it cre- key-value stores and rich applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Mergers in the Digital Economy
    2020/01 DP Axel Gautier and Joe Lamesch Mergers in the digital economy CORE Voie du Roman Pays 34, L1.03.01 B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve Tel (32 10) 47 43 04 Email: [email protected] https://uclouvain.be/en/research-institutes/ lidam/core/discussion-papers.html Mergers in the Digital Economy∗ Axel Gautier y& Joe Lamesch z January 13, 2020 Abstract Over the period 2015-2017, the five giant technologically leading firms, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft (GAFAM) acquired 175 companies, from small start-ups to billion dollar deals. By investigating this intense M&A, this paper ambitions a better understanding of the Big Five's strategies. To do so, we identify 6 different user groups gravitating around these multi-sided companies along with each company's most important market segments. We then track their mergers and acquisitions and match them with the segments. This exercise shows that these five firms use M&A activity mostly to strengthen their core market segments but rarely to expand their activities into new ones. Furthermore, most of the acquired products are shut down post acquisition, which suggests that GAFAM mainly acquire firm’s assets (functionality, technology, talent or IP) to integrate them in their ecosystem rather than the products and users themselves. For these tech giants, therefore, acquisition appears to be a substitute for in-house R&D. Finally, from our check for possible "killer acquisitions", it appears that just a single one in our sample could potentially be qualified as such. Keywords: Mergers, GAFAM, platform, digital markets, competition policy, killer acquisition JEL Codes: D43, K21, L40, L86, G34 ∗The authors would like to thank M.
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK and SYLLABUS for FIVE YEAR INTEGRATED M.Sc (DATA SCIENCE) DEGREE PROGRAMME in CHOICE BASED CREDIT SYSTEM
    Five year Integrated M.Sc (Data Science) Degree Programme 2019-2020 CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK AND SYLLABUS FOR FIVE YEAR INTEGRATED M.Sc (DATA SCIENCE) DEGREE PROGRAMME IN CHOICE BASED CREDIT SYSTEM FOR THE STUDENTS ADMITTED FROM THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2019-2020 ONWARDS THIAGARAJAR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING (A Government Aided Autonomous Institution affiliated to Anna University) MADURAI – 625 015, TAMILNADU Phone: 0452 – 2482240, 41 Fax: 0452 2483427 Web: www.tce.edu BOS Meeting Approved: 21-12-2018 Approved in 57th Academic Council meeting on 05-01-2019 Five year Integrated M.Sc (Data Science) Degree Programme 2019-2020 THIAGARAJAR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MADURAI 625 015 DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCE VISION “Academic and research excellence in Computational Science” MISSION As a Department, We are committed to Achieve academic excellence in Computational Science through innovative teaching and learning processes. Enable the students to be technically competent to solve the problems faced by the industry. Create a platform for pursuing inter-disciplinary research among the faculty and the students to create state of art research facilities. Promote quality and professional ethics among the students. Help the students to learn entrepreneurial skills. BOS Meeting Approved: 21-12-2018 Approved in 57th Academic Council meeting on 05-01-2019 Five year Integrated M.Sc (Data Science) Degree Programme 2019-2020 Programme Educational Objectives (PEO) Post graduates of M.Sc.(Data Science) program will be PEO1: Utilizing strong quantitative aptitude and domain knowledge to apply quantitative modeling and data analysis techniques to provide solutions to the real world business problems. PEO2: Applying research and entrepreneurial skills augmented with a rich set of communication, teamwork and leadership skills to excel in their profession.
    [Show full text]
  • Mac Os X Database Application
    Mac Os X Database Application Splashy Moses always degum his Politburo if Barr is unprovident or unswathing but. Corny Ashton enervating hinderingly or evite ergo when Weylin is faceless. Butcherly Maurits sometimes cognizes his alodiums hard and rebelled so submissively! New platform for the next section names of your data source you to It tedious really disappointing the heir that amount has been zero progress with this issue, could this time. Also many question are using databases on their Macs such as. Expert users may configure the ODBC. This application that you. Check the app from zero progress with a tabbed format of applications that this, transforming raw data! DBeaver Community Free Universal Database Tool. Provide the administrator username and password. You exhibit even export your bay as an html-table and print labels. Understanding at precious glance. Best Database Management Software for Mac 2021 Reviews. What does Texas gain for not selling electricity across state lines and therefore avoiding Federal Power and oversight? Take this open snaptube will get into chartable form at first mac os x application functioning of your experience with live without using app. Transform all kinds of files into optimized for various displays PDFs with water motion. However, four of the defining features of this crime is it it comes with native TLS encryption to ensure that important business success never gets into these wrong hands. Get stomp to legal one million creative assets on Envato Elements. Fuzzee allows to mac os application has been easier for free file to the appropriate odbc data synchronization tool.
    [Show full text]
  • Confidentiality and Perfomance for Cloud Databases
    Research Collection Doctoral Thesis Confidentiality and Performance for Cloud Databases Author(s): Braun-Löhrer, Lucas Victor Publication Date: 2017 Permanent Link: https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-010866596 Rights / License: In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted This page was generated automatically upon download from the ETH Zurich Research Collection. For more information please consult the Terms of use. ETH Library DISS. ETH NO. 24055 Confidentiality and Performance for Cloud Databases A thesis submitted to attain the degree of DOCTOR OF SCIENCES of ETH ZURICH (Dr. sc. ETH Zurich) presented by LUCAS VICTOR BRAUN-LÖHRER Master of Science ETH in Computer Science, ETH Zurich born on June 18, 1987 citizen of Aadorf, Thurgau accepted on the recommendation of Prof. Dr. Donald A. Kossmann, examiner Prof. Dr. Timothy Roscoe, co-examiner Prof. Dr. Renée J. Miller, co-examiner Prof. Dr. Thomas Neumann, co-examiner 2017 Typeset with LATEX © 2017 by Lucas Victor Braun-Löhrer Permission to print for personal and academic use, as well as permission for electronic reproduction and dissemination in unaltered and complete form are granted. All other rights reserved. Abstract The twenty-first century is often called the century of the information society. Theamount of collected data world-wide is growing exponentially and has easily reached the order of several million terabytes a day. As a result, everybody is talking about “big data” nowadays, not only in the research communities, but also very prominently in enterprises, politics and the press. Thanks to popular services, like Apple iCloud, Dropbox, Amazon Cloud Drive, Google Apps or Microsoft OneDrive, cloud storage has become a (nearly) ubiquitous and widely-used facility in which a huge portion of this big data is stored and processed.
    [Show full text]
  • Mergers in the Digital Economy
    2020/01 DP Axel Gautier and Joe Lamesch Mergers in the digital economy CORE Voie du Roman Pays 34, L1.03.01 B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve Tel (32 10) 47 43 04 Email: [email protected] https://uclouvain.be/en/research-institutes/ lidam/core/discussion-papers.html Mergers in the Digital Economy∗ Axel Gautier y& Joe Lamesch z January 13, 2020 Abstract Over the period 2015-2017, the five giant technologically leading firms, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft (GAFAM) acquired 175 companies, from small start-ups to billion dollar deals. By investigating this intense M&A, this paper ambitions a better understanding of the Big Five's strategies. To do so, we identify 6 different user groups gravitating around these multi-sided companies along with each company's most important market segments. We then track their mergers and acquisitions and match them with the segments. This exercise shows that these five firms use M&A activity mostly to strengthen their core market segments but rarely to expand their activities into new ones. Furthermore, most of the acquired products are shut down post acquisition, which suggests that GAFAM mainly acquire firm’s assets (functionality, technology, talent or IP) to integrate them in their ecosystem rather than the products and users themselves. For these tech giants, therefore, acquisition appears to be a substitute for in-house R&D. Finally, from our check for possible "killer acquisitions", it appears that just a single one in our sample could potentially be qualified as such. Keywords: Mergers, GAFAM, platform, digital markets, competition policy, killer acquisition JEL Codes: D43, K21, L40, L86, G34 ∗The authors would like to thank M.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Transactional Key-Value Stores Verifiably
    Cobra: Making Transactional Key-Value Stores Verifiably Serializable Cheng Tan, Changgeng Zhao, Shuai Mu?, and Michael Walfish NYU Department of Computer Science, Courant Institute ?Stony Brook University Abstract. Today’s cloud databases offer strong properties, of its operation. Meanwhile, any internal corruption—as could including serializability, sometimes called the gold standard happen from misconfiguration, operational error, compromise, database correctness property. But cloud databases are compli- or adversarial control at any layer of the execution stack—can cated black boxes, running in a different administrative domain cause a serializability violation. Beyond that, one need not from their clients. Thus, clients might like to know whether adopt a paranoid stance (“the cloud as malicious adversary”) the databases are meeting their contract. To that end, we intro- to acknowledge that it is difficult, as a technical matter, to pro- duce cobra; cobra applies to transactional key-value stores. vide serializability and geo-distribution and geo-replication It is the first system that combines (a) black-box checking, of and high performance under various failures [40, 78, 147]. (b) serializability, while (c) scaling to real-world online trans- Doing so usually involves a consensus protocol that inter- actional processing workloads. The core technical challenge acts with an atomic commit protocol [69, 96, 103]—a com- is that the underlying search problem is computationally ex- plex combination, and hence potentially bug-prone. Indeed, pensive. Cobra tames that problem by starting with a suitable today’s production systems have exhibited serializability vio- SMT solver. Cobra then introduces several new techniques, lations [1, 18, 19, 25, 26] (see also §6.1).
    [Show full text]
  • Mergers in the Digital Economy
    3136 REPRINT Axel Gautier, Lamesch Joé Mergers in the Digital Economy Information Economics and Policy CORE Voie du Roman Pays 34, L1.03.01 B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve Tel (32 10) 47 43 04 Email:[email protected] https://uclouvain.be/en/research-institutes/ lidam/core/reprints.html Mergers in the Digital Economy∗ Axel Gautier y& Joe Lamesch z June 2, 2020 Abstract Over the period 2015-2017, the five giant technologically leading firms, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft (GAFAM) acquired 175 companies, from small startups to billion dollar deals. In this paper, we provide detailed information and statistics on the merger activity of the GAFAM and on the characteristics of the firms they acquire. One of the most intriguing features of these acquisitions is that, in the majority of cases, the product of the target is discontinued under its original brand name post acquisition and this is especially true for the youngest firms. There are three reasons to discontinue a product post acquisition: the product is not as successful as expected, the acquisition was not motivated by the product itself but by the target's assets or R&D effort, or by the elimination of a potential competitive threat. While our data does not enable us to screen between these explanations, the present analysis shows that most of the startups are killed in their infancy. This important phenomenon calls for tighter intervention by competition authorities in merger cases involving big techs. Keywords: Mergers, GAFAM, platform, digital markets, competition policy, killer acquisition JEL Codes: D43, K21, L40, L86, G34 ∗The authors would like to thank P.
    [Show full text]
  • COSC349—Cloud Computing Architecture David Eyers Learning Objectives
    Cloud Middleware and MBaaS COSC349—Cloud Computing Architecture David Eyers Learning objectives • Outline the usefulness of middleware for developing applications that use cloud computing • Contrast Apple CloudKit and Google Firebase in terms of relationships between provider, tenants and clients • Describe typical MBaaS services • MBaaS—Mobile Back-end as a Service (seen in XaaS lecture) • Sketch pricing approach of CloudKit versus Firebase COSC349 Lecture 20, 2020 2 Middleware for cloud computing • Middleware: OS-like functionality for apps beyond OS • e.g., OS accesses local files; middleware accesses cloud files • (assumption that OS isn’t cloud aware is less realistic over time…) • Middleware often eases translation between platforms • Typically use middleware via a software library • … contrast this with programming directly against cloud APIs • Focus on two (Mobile) Backend as a Service offerings: • Apple's CloudKit (2014)—iCloud launched 2011 • Google’s Firebase (~2014)—Firebase launched in 2011 COSC349 Lecture 20, 2020 3 MBaaS versus typical AWS services • Amazon has a relationship with the tenant • … but does not explicitly have any link with tenants’ clients • Contrast MBaaS from Apple, Google, etc.: • company has relationship with the tenant (e.g., iOS app dev.) • company also has a relationship with the client • Differences between Apple, Google, etc. • Apple has a financial link by selling kit to tenants’ clients • Google interests in cross-service linkage—across search, etc. • (Amazon doesn’t seem to leverage Amazon+AWS
    [Show full text]
  • Paper Title (Use Style: Paper Title)
    International Association of Scientific Innovation and Research (IASIR) ISSN (Print): 2279-0047 (An Association Unifying the Sciences, Engineering, and Applied Research) ISSN (Online): 2279-0055 International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Computational and Applied Sciences (IJETCAS) www.iasir.net BIG DATA ANALYTICS ON THE CLOUD Dr. Tamanna Siddiqui, Mohammad Al Kadri Department Of Computer Science Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, INDIA Abstract: The late advancements in innovations and construction modeling made the big data –which is information examination procedure – one of the sultriest points in our present studies. For that big data applications get to be more the most required programming in our life, in light of the fact that all our business, social, instructive and medicinal studies consider this idea as nightmare specially when we discuss storing and accessing client information in business clouds, or mining of social information. Big data needs a gigantic hardware equipment and processing assets, this needs made the little and medium estimated organizations be perplexed from these expenses. Anyhow, cloud computing offers all these needs for big data implementation to those organizations. It gives services to internet by using assets of the figuring framework to give diverse services of the web. It makes customers and organizations have the capacity to control their applications without establishment and retrieve their own data at any computer through internet access. The significant concerns according to cloud computing are security and loss of control. This paper presents an overview of big data concept, its famous interactive analysis tools (Apache Hive, BigQuery, CitusDB, ..), big data software (MATLAB, R, SAS, STATA, … ) and their comparisons on the basis of specific parameters .This paper also focuses on Cloud computing services and its four models (PaaS, SaaS, IaaS, HaaS).
    [Show full text]