2011 11th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing 2011
DOI: 10.1109/ccgrid.2011.84
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance under Failures of MapReduce Applications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They evaluate the correctness of the system and carry out a trade-off analysis of the number of resources versus processing time and resource cost with CPNTools [18]. Further works with PNs and MapReduce are oriented to measuring performance under failures [19] or studying the fault tolerance mechanism [28].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They evaluate the correctness of the system and carry out a trade-off analysis of the number of resources versus processing time and resource cost with CPNTools [18]. Further works with PNs and MapReduce are oriented to measuring performance under failures [19] or studying the fault tolerance mechanism [28].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They claimed that a single failure led to variable and unpredictable job running times. Jin et al [18] derived a stochastic model to predict both the best and worst job completion time of MapReduce applications on node failures.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The conventional wisdom is to make a number of replicas to the primary copy [13,17]. When the primary copy is failed, one of the replicas will be restored to replace the failed primary copy.…”
Section: E Fault Tolerancementioning
confidence: 99%