Re: Kudu on top of Alluxio

+1 thanks for adding that Todd. Mike On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Mike Percy wrote: > >> Kudu currently relies on local storage on a POSIX file system. Right now >> there is no support for S3,

Re: Kudu on top of Alluxio

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Mike Percy wrote: > Kudu currently relies on local storage on a POSIX file system. Right now > there is no support for S3, which would be interesting but is non-trivial > in certain ways (particularly if we wanted to rely on S3's replication

Re: Kudu on top of Alluxio

Yeah. I think the reason HBase can pretty easily use something like Alluxio or S3 and Kudu can't as easily do it is because HBase already relied on external storage (HDFS) for replication so substituting another storage system with similar properties doesn't really amount to an architectural

Re: Kudu on top of Alluxio

Mike, Thanks for the informative answer. I asked this question because I saw that Alluxio can be used to handle storage for HBase. Plus, we could keep our cluster size to a minimum and not need to add more nodes based on storage capacity. We would only need to size our clusters based on load

Kudu on top of Alluxio

Hi, Does anyone know of a way to use AWS S3 or