How far away from the theoretical maximum rate is the thrift protocol? What kind of gain is expected from the native C++ approach?
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 12:56 PM, John R. Frank <j...@diffeo.com> wrote: > Accumulo Developers, > > We're trying to boost throughput of non-Java tools with Accumulo. It seems > that the lowest hanging fruit is to stop using the thrift proxy. Per > discussion about Python and thrift proxy in the users list [1], I'm wondering > if anyone is interested in helping with a native C++ client? There is a > start on one here [2]. We could offer a bounty or maybe make a consulting > project depending who is interested in it. > > We also looked at trying to run a separate thrift proxy for every worker > thread or process. With many cores on a box, eg 32, it just doesn't seem > practical to run that many proxies, even if they all run on a single JVM. > We'd be glad to hear ideas on that front too. > > A potentially big benefit of making a proper C++ accumulo client is that it > is straightforward to expose native interfaces in Python (via pyObject), Go > [3], Ruby [4], and other languages. > > Thanks for any advice, pointers, interest. > > John > > > 1-- http://www.mail-archive.com/user@accumulo.apache.org/msg03999.html > > 2-- > https://github.com/phrocker/apeirogon > > 3-- http://golang.org/cmd/cgo/ > > 4-- https://www.amberbit.com/blog/2014/6/12/calling-c-cpp-from-ruby/ > > > Sent from +1-617-899-2066
