Is 21 st century cloud computing same as 1960's time sharing

Diagram showing three main types of cloud comp...
Image via Wikipedia

and yes Prof Goodnight, cloud computing is not time sharing. (Dr J was on a roll there- bashing open source AND cloud computing in the SAME interview at http://www.cbronline.com/news/sas-ceo-says-cep-open-source-and-cloud-bi-have-limited-appeal)

What was time sharing? In the 1960’s when people had longer hair, listened to the Beatles and IBM actually owned ALL computers-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-sharing

or is it?

The Internet has brought the general concept of time-sharing back into popularity. Expensive corporate server farms costing millions can host thousands of customers all sharing the same common resources. As with the early serial terminals, websites operate primarily in bursts of activity followed by periods of idle time. This bursting nature permits the service to be used by many website customers at once, and none of them notice any delays in communications until the servers start to get very busy.

What is 21 st century cloud computing? Well… they are still writing papers to define it BUT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing

Cloud computing is Web-based processing, whereby shared resources, software, and information are provided to computers and other devices (such as smartphones) on demand over the Internet.

 

 

Which software do we buy? -It depends

Software (novel)
Image via Wikipedia

Often I am asked by clients, friends and industry colleagues on the suitability or unsuitability of particular software for analytical needs.  My answer is mostly-

It depends on-

1) Cost of Type 1 error in purchase decision versus Type 2 error in Purchase Decision. (forgive me if I mix up Type 1 with Type 2 error- I do have some weird childhood learning disabilities which crop up now and then)

Here I define Type 1 error as paying more for a software when there were equivalent functionalities available at lower price, or buying components you do need , like SPSS Trends (when only SPSS Base is required) or SAS ETS, when only SAS/Stat would do.

The first kind is of course due to the presence of free tools with GUI like R, R Commander and Deducer (Rattle does have a 500$ commercial version).

The emergence of software vendors like WPS (for SAS language aficionados) which offer similar functionality as Base SAS, as well as the increasing convergence of business analytics (read predictive analytics), business intelligence (read reporting) has led to somewhat brand clutter in which all softwares promise to do everything at all different prices- though they all have specific strengths and weakness. To add to this, there are comparatively fewer business analytics independent analysts than say independent business intelligence analysts.

2) Type 2 Error- In this case the opportunity cost of delayed projects, business models , or lower accuracy – consequences of buying a lower priced software which had lesser functionality than you required.

To compound the magnitude of error 2, you are probably in some kind of vendor lock-in, your software budget is over because of buying too much or inappropriate software and hardware, and still you could do with some added help in business analytics. The fear of making a business critical error is a substantial reason why open source software have to work harder at proving them competent. This is because writing great software is not enough, we need great marketing to sell it, and great customer support to sustain it.

As Business Decisions are decisions made in the constraints of time, information and money- I will try to create a software purchase matrix based on my knowledge of known softwares (and unknown strengths and weakness), pricing (versus budgets), and ranges of data handling. I will add in basically an optimum approach based on known constraints, and add in flexibility for unknown operational constraints.

I will restrain this matrix to analytics software, though you could certainly extend it to other classes of enterprise software including big data databases, infrastructure and computing.

Noted Assumptions- 1) I am vendor neutral and do not suffer from subjective bias or affection for particular software (based on conferences, books, relationships,consulting etc)

2) All software have bugs so all need customer support.

3) All software have particular advantages , strengths and weakness in terms of functionality.

4) Cost includes total cost of ownership and opportunity cost of business analytics enabled decision.

5) All software marketing people will praise their own software- sometimes over-selling and mis-selling product bundles.

Software compared are SPSS, KXEN, R,SAS, WPS, Revolution R, SQL Server,  and various flavors and sub components within this. Optimized approach will include parallel programming, cloud computing, hardware costs, and dependent software costs.

To be continued-

 

 

 

 

HP goes GPU, Will software people follow

A graphics processing unit on an Nvidia GeForc...
Image via Wikipedia

One more addition to the GPU stack that adds up power when combined with CPU and GPUs. For numeric computing, it may be essential to have GPU- CPU mixed software as almost all hardware people now have offered GPU-CPU products. Maybe software companies can get inspired for new kind of GPU-CPU blade server software again.

Source-

http://www.hpcwire.com/features/HP-Adds-New-HPC-Server-with-GPGPU-Option-104381494.html

But for “true” supercomputing applications, the SL390s G7 is the go-to server. Like its sibling, the SL390s comes with Xeon 5600 processors, but the option to pair the CPUs with up to three on-board NVIDIA “Fermi” 20-series GPUs puts a lot more floating point performance into this design. Customers can choose from either the M2050 or M2070 Tesla GPU modules, the only difference being the amount of graphics memory — 3 GB of GDDR5 for the M2050 versus 6 GB for the M2070. Each GPU module is served by its own PCIe Gen2 x16 channel in order to maximize bandwidth to the graphics chips. At the maximum configuration with all three Fermi GPUs and two Westmere CPUs, a single server delivers on the order of 1 teraflop of double precision performance. “So this is very much a server that has been designed for HPC,” said Turkel.

With GPUs on board, the SL390s fill out a 2U half-width tray, so up to four of these can be packed into a 4U SL6500 chassis. A CPU-only version is also available and takes up just half the space (half-width 1U), enabling twice as many Xeons to occupy the same chassis. This configuration will likely be the server of choice for the majority of HPC setups, given that GPGPU deployment is really just getting started. Pricing on the CPU-only model starts at $2,259.

And

, the ProLiant SL390s G7, provides more raw FLOPS per square inch than any server HP has delivered to date, and is the basis for the 2.4 petaflop TSUBAME 2.0 supercomputer currently being deployed at the Tokyo Institute of Technology.

Sector/ Sphere – Faster than Hadoop/Mapreduce at Terasort

Here is a preview of a relatively young software Sector and Sphere- which are claimed to be better than Hadoop /MapReduce at TeraSort Benchmark among others.

http://sector.sourceforge.net/tech.html

System Overview

The Sector/Sphere stack consists of the Sector distributed file system and the Sphere parallel data processing framework. The objective is to support highly effective and efficient large data storage and processing over commodity computer clusters.

Sector/Sphere Architecture

Sector consists of 4 parts, as shown in the above diagram. The Security server maintains the system security configurations such as user accounts, data IO permissions, and IP access control lists. The master servers maintain file system metadata, schedule jobs, and respond users’ requests. Sector supports multiple active masters that can join and leave at run time and they all actively respond users’ requests. The slave nodes are racks of computers that store and process data. The slaves nodes can be located within a single data center to across multiple data centers with high speed network connections. Finally, the client includes tools and programming APIs to access and process Sector data.

Sphere: Parallel Data Processing Framework

Sphere allows developers to write parallel data processing applications with a very simple set of API. It applies user-defined functions (UDF) on all input data segments in parallel. In a Sphere application, both inputs and outputs are Sector files. Multiple Sphere processing can be combined to support more complicated applications, with inputs/outputs exchanged/shared via the Sector file system.

Data segments are processed at their storage locations whenever possible (data locality). Failed data segments may be restarted on other nodes to achieve fault tolerance.

The Sphere framework can be compared to MapReduce as they both enforce data locality and provide simplified programming interfaces. In fact, Sphere can simulate any MapReduce operations, but Sphere is more efficient and flexible. Sphere can provide better data locality for applications that process files or multiple files as minimum input units and for applications that involve with iterative/combinative processing, which requires coordination of multiple UDFs to obtain the final result.

A Sphere application includes two parts: the client program that organizes inputs (including certain parameters), outputs, and UDFs; and the UDFs that process data segments. Data segmentation, load balancing, and fault tolerance are transparent to developers.

Space: Column-based Distbuted Data Table

Space stores data tables in Sector and uses Sphere for parallel query processing. Space is similar to BigTable. Table is stored by columns and is segmented on to multiple slave nodes. Tables are independent and no relationship between tables are supported. A reduced set of SQL operations is supported, including but not limited to table creation and modification, key-value update and lookup, and select operations based on UDF.

Supported by the Sector data placement mechanism and the Sphere parallel processing framework, Space can support efficient key-value lookup and certain SQL queries on very large data tables.

Space is currently still in development.

and just when you thought Hadoop was the only way to be on the cloud.

http://sector.sourceforge.net/benchmark.html

The Terasort Benchmark

The table below lists the performance (total processing time in seconds) of the Terasort benchmark of both Sphere and Hadoop. (Terasort benchmark: suppose there are N nodes in the system, the benchmark generates a 10GB file on each node and sorts the total N*10GB data. Data generation time is excluded.) Note that it is normal to see a longer processing time for more nodes because the total amount of data also increases proportionally.

The performance value listed in this page was achieved using the Open Cloud Testbed. Currently the testbed consists of 4 racks. Each rack has 32 nodes, including 1 NFS server, 1 head node, and 30 compute/slave nodes. The head node is a Dell 1950, dual dual-core Xeon 3.0GHz, 16GB RAM. The compute nodes are Dell 1435s, single dual core AMD Opteron 2.0GHz, 4GB RAM, and 1TB single disk. The 4 racks are located in JHU (Baltimore), StarLight (Chicago), UIC (Chicago), and Calit2(San Diego). The inter-rack bandwidth is 10GE, supported by CiscoWave deployed over National Lambda Rail.

Sphere
Hadoop (3 replicas)
Hadoop (1 replica)
UIC
1265 2889 2252
UIC + StarLight
1361 2896 2617
UIC + StarLight + Calit2
1430 4341 3069
UIC + StarLight + Calit2 + JHU
1526 6675 3702

The benchmark uses the testfs/testdc examples of Sphere and randomwriter/sort examples of Hadoop. Hadoop parameters were tuned to reach good results.

Updated on Sep. 22, 2009: We have benchmarked the most recent versions of Sector/Sphere (1.24a) and Hadoop (0.20.1) on a new set of servers. Each server node costs $2,200 and consits of a single Intel Xeon E5410 2.4GHz CPU, 16GB RAM, 4*1TB RAID0 disk, and 1Gb/s NIC. The 120 nodes are hosted on 4 racks within the same data center and the inter-rack bandwidth is 20Gb/s.

The table below lists the performance of sorting 1TB data using Sector/Sphere version 1.24a and Hadoop 0.20.1. Related Hadoop parameters have been tuned for better performance (e.g., big block size), while Sector/Sphere does not require tuning. In addition, to achieve the highest performance, replication is disabled in both systems (note that replication does not afftect the performance of Sphere but will significantly decrease the performance of Hadoop).

Number of Racks
Sphere
Hadoop
1
28m 25s 85m 49s
2
15m 20s 37m 0s
3
10m 19s 25m 14s
4
7m 56s 17m 45s

SAS/Blades/Servers/ GPU Benchmarks

Just checked out cool new series from NVidia servers.

Now though SAS Inc/ Jim Goodnight thinks HP Blade Servers are the cool thing- the GPU takes hardware high performance computing to another level. It would be interesting to see GPU based cloud computers as well – say for the on Demand SAS (free for academics and students) but which has had some complaints of being slow.

See this for SAS and Blade Servers-

http://www.sas.com/success/ncsu_analytics.html

To give users hands-on experience, the program is underpinned by a virtual computing lab (VCL), a remote access service that allows users to reserve a computer configured with a desired set of applications and operating system and then access that computer over the Internet. The lab is powered by an IBM BladeCenter infrastructure, which includes more than 500 blade servers, distributed between two locations. The assignment of the blade servers can be changed to meet shifts in the balance of demand among the various groups of users. Laura Ladrie, MSA Classroom Coordinator and Technical Support Specialist, says, “The virtual computing lab chose IBM hardware because of its quality, reliability and performance. IBM hardware is also energy efficient and lends itself well to high performance/low overhead computing.

Thats interesting since IBM now competes (as owner of SPSS) and also cooperates with SAS Institute

And

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/the-world-according-to-jim-goodnight-blade-switch-slashes-job-times/story-e6frgakx-1225888236107

You’re effectively turbo-charging through deployment of many processors within the blade servers?

Yes. We’ve got machines with 192 blades on them. One of them has 202 or 203 blades. We’re using Hewlett-Packard blades with 12 CP cores on each, so it’s a total 2300 CPU cores doing the computation.

Our idea was to give every one of those cores a little piece of work to do, and we came up with a solution. It involved a very small change to the algorithm we were using, and it’s just incredible how fast we can do things now.

I don’t think of it as a grid, I think of it as essentially one computer. Most people will take a blade and make a grid out of it, where everything’s a separate computer running separate jobs.

We just look at it as one big machine that has memory and processors all over the place, so it’s a totally different concept.

GPU servers can be faster than CPU servers, though , Professor G.




Source-

http://www.nvidia.com/object/preconfigured_clusters.html

TESLA GPU COMPUTING SOLUTIONS FOR DATA CENTERS
Supercharge your cluster with the Tesla family of GPU computing solutions. Deploy 1U systems from NVIDIA or hybrid CPU-GPU servers from OEMs that integrate NVIDIA® Tesla™ GPU computing processors.

When compared to the latest quad-core CPU, Tesla 20-series GPU computing processors deliver equivalent performance at 1/20th the power consumption and 1/10th the cost. Each Tesla GPU features hundreds of parallel CUDA cores and is based on the revolutionary NVIDIA® CUDA™ parallel computing architecture with a rich set of developer tools (compilers, profilers, debuggers) for popular programming languages APIs like C, C++, Fortran, and driver APIs like OpenCL and DirectCompute.

NVIDIA’s partners provide turnkey easy-to-deploy Preconfigured Tesla GPU clusters that are customizable to your needs. For 3D cloud computing applications, our partners offer the Tesla RS clusters that are optimized for running RealityServer with iray.

Available Tesla Products for Data Centers:
– Tesla S2050
– Tesla M2050/M2070
– Tesla S1070
– Tesla M1060

Also I liked the hybrid GPU and CPU

And from a paper on comparing GPU and CPU using Benchmark tests on BLAS from a Debian- Dirk E’s excellent blog

http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/blog/

Usage of accelerated BLAS libraries seems to shrouded in some mystery, judging from somewhat regularly recurring requests for help on lists such as r-sig-hpc(gmane version), the R list dedicated to High-Performance Computing. Yet it doesn’t have to be; installation can be really simple (on appropriate systems).

Another issue that I felt needed addressing was a comparison between the different alternatives available, quite possibly including GPU computing. So a few weeks ago I sat down and wrote a small package to run, collect, analyse and visualize some benchmarks. That package, called gcbd (more about the name below) is now onCRAN as of this morning. The package both facilitates the data collection for the paper it also contains (in the vignette form common among R packages) and provides code to analyse the data—which is also included as a SQLite database. All this is done in the Debian and Ubuntu context by transparently installing and removing suitable packages providing BLAS implementations: that we can fully automate data collection over several competing implementations via a single script (which is also included). Contributions of benchmark results is encouraged—that is the idea of the package.

And from his paper on the same-

Analysts are often eager to reap the maximum performance from their computing platforms.

A popular suggestion in recent years has been to consider optimised basic linear algebra subprograms (BLAS). Optimised BLAS libraries have been included with some (commercial) analysis platforms for a decade (Moler 2000), and have also been available for (at least some) Linux distributions for an equally long time (Maguire 1999). Setting BLAS up can be daunting: the R language and environment devotes a detailed discussion to the topic in its Installation and Administration manual (R Development Core Team 2010b, appendix A.3.1). Among the available BLAS implementations, several popular choices have emerged. Atlas (an acronym for Automatically Tuned Linear Algebra System) is popular as it has shown very good performance due to its automated and CPU-speci c tuning (Whaley and Dongarra 1999; Whaley and Petitet 2005). It is also licensed in such a way that it permits redistribution leading to fairly wide availability of Atlas.1 We deploy Atlas in both a single-threaded and a multi-threaded con guration. Another popular BLAS implementation is Goto BLAS which is named after its main developer, Kazushige Goto (Goto and Van De Geijn 2008). While `free to use’, its license does not permit redistribution putting the onus of con guration, compilation and installation on the end-user. Lastly, the Intel Math Kernel Library (MKL), a commercial product, also includes an optimised BLAS library. A recent addition to the tool chain of high-performance computing are graphical processing units (GPUs). Originally designed for optimised single-precision arithmetic to accelerate computing as performed by graphics cards, these devices are increasingly used in numerical analysis. Earlier criticism of insucient floating-point precision or severe performance penalties for double-precision calculation are being addressed by the newest models. Dependence on particular vendors remains a concern with NVidia’s CUDA toolkit (NVidia 2010) currently still the preferred development choice whereas the newer OpenCL standard (Khronos Group 2008) may become a more generic alternative that is independent of hardware vendors. Brodtkorb et al. (2010) provide an excellent recent survey. But what has been lacking is a comparison of the e ective performance of these alternatives. This paper works towards answering this question. By analysing performance across ve di erent BLAS implementations|as well as a GPU-based solution|we are able to provide a reasonably broad comparison.

Performance is measured as an end-user would experience it: we record computing times from launching commands in the interactive R environment (R Development Core Team 2010a) to their completion.

And

Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms (BLAS) provide an Application Programming Interface
(API) for linear algebra. For a given task such as, say, a multiplication of two conformant
matrices, an interface is described via a function declaration, in this case sgemm for single
precision and dgemm for double precision. The actual implementation becomes interchangeable
thanks to the API de nition and can be supplied by di erent approaches or algorithms. This
is one of the fundamental code design features we are using here to benchmark the di erence
in performance from di erent implementations.
A second key aspect is the di erence between static and shared linking. In static linking,
object code is taken from the underlying library and copied into the resulting executable.
This has several key implications. First, the executable becomes larger due to the copy of
the binary code. Second, it makes it marginally faster as the library code is present and
no additional look-up and subsequent redirection has to be performed. The actual amount
of this performance penalty is the subject of near-endless debate. We should also note that
this usually amounts to only a small load-time penalty combined with a function pointer
redirection|the actual computation e ort is unchanged as the actual object code is identi-
cal. Third, it makes the program more robust as fewer external dependencies are required.
However, this last point also has a downside: no changes in the underlying library will be
reected in the binary unless a new build is executed. Shared library builds, on the other
hand, result in smaller binaries that may run marginally slower|but which can make use of
di erent libraries without a rebuild.

Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms (BLAS) provide an Application Programming Interface(API) for linear algebra. For a given task such as, say, a multiplication of two conformantmatrices, an interface is described via a function declaration, in this case sgemm for singleprecision and dgemm for double precision. The actual implementation becomes interchangeablethanks to the API de nition and can be supplied by di erent approaches or algorithms. Thisis one of the fundamental code design features we are using here to benchmark the di erencein performance from di erent implementations.A second key aspect is the di erence between static and shared linking. In static linking,object code is taken from the underlying library and copied into the resulting executable.This has several key implications. First, the executable becomes larger due to the copy ofthe binary code. Second, it makes it marginally faster as the library code is present andno additional look-up and subsequent redirection has to be performed. The actual amountof this performance penalty is the subject of near-endless debate. We should also note thatthis usually amounts to only a small load-time penalty combined with a function pointerredirection|the actual computation e ort is unchanged as the actual object code is identi-cal. Third, it makes the program more robust as fewer external dependencies are required.However, this last point also has a downside: no changes in the underlying library will bereected in the binary unless a new build is executed. Shared library builds, on the otherhand, result in smaller binaries that may run marginally slower|but which can make use ofdi erent libraries without a rebuild.

And summing up,

reference BLAS to be dominated in all cases. Single-threaded Atlas BLAS improves on the reference BLAS but loses to multi-threaded BLAS. For multi-threaded BLAS we nd the Goto BLAS dominate the Intel MKL, with a single exception of the QR decomposition on the xeon-based system which may reveal an error. The development version of Atlas, when compiled in multi-threaded mode is competitive with both Goto BLAS and the MKL. GPU computing is found to be compelling only for very large matrix sizes. Our benchmarking framework in the gcbd package can be employed by others through the R packaging system which could lead to a wider set of benchmark results. These results could be helpful for next-generation systems which may need to make heuristic choices about when to compute on the CPU and when to compute on the GPU.

Source – DirkE’paper and blog http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/papers/gcbd.pdf

Quite appropriately-,

Hardware solutions or atleast need to be a part of Revolution Analytic’s thinking as well. SPSS does not have any choice anymore though 😉

It would be interesting to see how the new SAS Cloud Computing/ Server Farm/ Time Sharing facility is benchmarking CPU and GPU for SAS analytics performance – if being done already it would be nice to see a SUGI paper on the same at http://sascommunity.org.

Multi threading needs to be taken care automatically by statistical software to optimize current local computing (including for New R)

Acceptable benchmarks for testing hardware as well as software need to be reinforced and published across vendors, academics  and companies.

What do you think?


Dryad- Microsoft's answer to MR

While reading across the internet I came across Microsoft’s version to MapReduce called Dryad- which has been around for some time, but has not generated quite the buzz that Hadoop or MapReduce are doing.

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/dryadlinq/

DryadLINQ

DryadLINQ is a simple, powerful, and elegant programming environment for writing large-scale data parallel applications running on large PC clusters.

Overview

New! An academic release of Dryad/DryadLINQ is now available for public download.

The goal of DryadLINQ is to make distributed computing on large compute cluster simple enough for every programmers. DryadLINQ combines two important pieces of Microsoft technology: the Dryad distributed execution engine and the .NET Language Integrated Query (LINQ).

Dryad provides reliable, distributed computing on thousands of servers for large-scale data parallel applications. LINQ enables developers to write and debug their applications in a SQL-like query language, relying on the entire .NET library and using Visual Studio.

DryadLINQ translates LINQ programs into distributed Dryad computations:

  • C# and LINQ data objects become distributed partitioned files.
  • LINQ queries become distributed Dryad jobs.
  • C# methods become code running on the vertices of a Dryad job.

DryadLINQ has the following features:

  • Declarative programming: computations are expressed in a high-level language similar to SQL
  • Automatic parallelization: from sequential declarative code the DryadLINQ compiler generates highly parallel query plans spanning large computer clusters. For exploiting multi-core parallelism on each machine DryadLINQ relies on the PLINQ parallelization framework.
  • Integration with Visual Studio: programmers in DryadLINQ take advantage of the comprehensive VS set of tools: Intellisense, code refactoring, integrated debugging, build, source code management.
  • Integration with .Net: all .Net libraries, including Visual Basic, and dynamic languages are available.
  • and
  • Conciseness: the following line of code is a complete implementation of the Map-Reduce computation framework in DryadLINQ:
    • public static IQueryable<R>
      MapReduce<S,M,K,R>(this IQueryable<S> source,
      Expression<Func<S,IEnumerable<M>>> mapper,
      Expression<Func<M,K>> keySelector,
      Expression<Func<K,IEnumerable<M>,R>> reducer)
      {
      return source.SelectMany(mapper).GroupBy(keySelector, reducer);
      }

    and http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/dryad/

    Dryad

    The Dryad Project is investigating programming models for writing parallel and distributed programs to scale from a small cluster to a large data-center.

    Overview

    New! An academic release of DryadLINQ is now available for public download.

    Dryad is an infrastructure which allows a programmer to use the resources of a computer cluster or a data center for running data-parallel programs. A Dryad programmer can use thousands of machines, each of them with multiple processors or cores, without knowing anything about concurrent programming.

    The Structure of Dryad Jobs

    A Dryad programmer writes several sequential programs and connects them using one-way channels. The computation is structured as a directed graph: programs are graph vertices, while the channels are graph edges. A Dryad job is a graph generator which can synthesize any directed acyclic graph. These graphs can even change during execution, in response to important events in the computation.

    Dryad is quite expressive. It completely subsumes other computation frameworks, such as Google’s map-reduce, or the relational algebra. Moreover, Dryad handles job creation and management, resource management, job monitoring and visualization, fault tolerance, re-execution, scheduling, and accounting.

    The Dryad Software Stack

    As a proof of Dryad’s versatility, a rich software ecosystem has been built on top Dryad:

    • SSIS on Dryad executes many instances of SQL server, each in a separate Dryad vertex, taking advantage of Dryad’s fault tolerance and scheduling. This system is currently deployed in a live production system as part of one of Microsoft’s AdCenter log processing pipelines.
    • DryadLINQ generates Dryad computations from the LINQ Language-Integrated Query extensions to C#.
    • The distributed shell is a generalization of the pipe concept from the Unix shell in three ways. If Unix pipes allow the construction of one-dimensional (1-D) process structures, the distributed shell allows the programmer to build 2-D structures in a scripting language. The distributed shell generalizes Unix pipes in three ways:
      1. It allows processes to easily connect multiple file descriptors of each process — hence the 2-D aspect.
      2. It allows the construction of pipes spanning multiple machines, across a cluster.
      3. It virtualizes the pipelines, allowing the execution of pipelines with many more processes than available machines, by time-multiplexing processors and buffering results.
    • Several languages are compiled to distributed shell processes. PSQL is an early version, recently replaced with Scope.

    Publications

    Dryad: Distributed Data-Parallel Programs from Sequential Building Blocks
    Michael Isard, Mihai Budiu, Yuan Yu, Andrew Birrell, and Dennis Fetterly
    European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys), Lisbon, Portugal, March 21-23, 2007

    Video of a presentation on Dryad at the Google Campus, given by Michael Isard, Nov 1, 2007.

    Also interesting to read-

    Why does Dryad use a DAG?

    he basic computational model we decided to adopt for Dryad is the directed-acyclic graph (DAG). Each node in the graph is a computation, and each edge in the graph is a stream of data traveling in the direction of the edge. The amount of data on any given edge is assumed to be finite, the computations are assumed to be deterministic, and the inputs are assumed to be immutable. This isn’t by any means a new way of structuring a distributed computation (for example Condor had DAGMan long before Dryad came along), but it seemed like a sweet spot in the design space given our other constraints.

    So, why is this a sweet spot? A DAG is very convenient because it induces an ordering on the nodes in the graph. That makes it easy to design scheduling policies, since you can define a node to be ready when its inputs are available, and at any time you can choose to schedule as many ready nodes as you like in whatever order you like, and as long as you always have at least one scheduled you will continue to make progress and never deadlock. It also makes fault-tolerance easy, since given our determinism and immutability assumptions you can backtrack as far as you want in the DAG and re-execute as many nodes as you like to regenerate intermediate data that has been lost or is unavailable due to cluster failures.

    from

    http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dryad/archive/2010/07/23/why-does-dryad-use-a-dag.aspx

      SAS Sentiment Analysis wins Award

      From Business Wire, the new Sentiment Analysis product by SAS Institute (created by acquisition Teragram ) wins an award. As per wikipedia

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentiment_analysis

      Sentiment analysis or opinion mining refers to a broad (definitionally challenged) area of natural language processingcomputational linguistics and text mining. Generally speaking, it aims to determine the attitude of a speaker or a writer with respect to some topic. The attitude may be their judgment or evaluation (see appraisal theory), their affective state (that is to say, the emotional state of the author when writing) or the intended emotional communication (that is to say, the emotional effect the author wishes to have on the reader).

      It was developed by Teragram. Here is another Sentiment Analysis tool from Stanford Grad school at http://twittersentiment.appspot.com/search?query=sas

      See-

      Sentiment analysis for sas

      Image Citation-

      http://threeminds.organic.com/2009/09/five_reasons_sentiment_analysi.html

      Read an article on sentiment analysis here at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/technology/internet/24emotion.html

      And the complete press release at http://goo.gl/iVzf`

      SAS Sentiment Analysis delivers insights on customer, competitor and organizational opinions to a degree never before possible via manual review of electronic text. As a result, SAS, the leader in business analytics software and services, has earned the prestigious Communications Solutions Product of the Year Award fromTechnology Marketing Corporation (TMC).

      “SAS has automated the time-consuming process of reading individual documents and manually extracting relevant information”

      “SAS Sentiment Analysis has shown benefits for its customers and it provides ROI for the companies that use it,” said Rich Tehrani, CEO, TMC. “Congratulations to the entire team at SAS, a company distinguished by its dedication to software quality and superiority to address marketplace needs.”

      Derive positive and negative opinions, evaluations and emotions

      SAS Sentiment Analysis’ high-performance crawler locates and extracts sentiment from digital content sources, including mainstream websites, social media outlets, internal servers and incoming news feeds. SAS’ unique hybrid approach combines powerful statistical techniques with linguistics rules to improve accuracy to the detailed feature level. It summarizes the sentiment expressed in all available text collections – identifying trends and creating graphical reports that describe the expressed feelings of consumers, partners, employees and competitors in real time. Output from SAS Sentiment Analysis can be stored in document repositories, surfaced in corporate portals and used as input to additional SAS Text Analytics software or search engines to help decision makers evaluate trends, predict future outcomes, minimize risks and capitalize on opportunities.

      “SAS has automated the time-consuming process of reading individual documents and manually extracting relevant information,” said Fiona McNeill, Global Analytics Product Marketing Manager at SAS. “Our integrated analytics framework helps organizations maximize the value of information to improve their effectiveness.”

      SAS Sentiment Analysis is included in the SAS Text Analytics suite, which helps organizations discover insights from electronic text materials, associate them for delivery to the right person or place, and provide intelligence to select the best course of action. Whether answering complex search-and-retrieval questions, ensuring appropriate content is presented to internal or external constituencies, or predicting which activity or channel will produce the best effect on existing sentiments, SAS Text Analytics provides exceptional real-time processing speeds for large volumes of text.

      SAS Text Analytics solutions are part of the SAS Business Analytics Framework, backed by the industry’s most comprehensive range of consulting, training and support services, ensuring customers maximum return from their IT investments.

      Recognizing vision

      The Communications Solutions Product of the Year Award recognizes vision, leadership and thoroughness. The most innovative products and services brought to the market from March 2008 through March 2009 were chosen as winners of this Product of the Year Award and are published on the INTERNET TELEPHONY and Customer Interaction Solutions websites.