2015 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) 2015
DOI: 10.1109/bigdata.2015.7363756
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating cloud frameworks on genomic applications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
19
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Comparative analysis, published in [9] and [10], shows that the performance of Flink and Spark are remarkably similar, while the performance of Spark and SciDB are very different, with SciDB faster then Spark when operations involve selections and aggregates (as they are facilitated by an array organization); whereas, Spark is faster than SciDB in JOIN and MAP operations (thanks to the general power of the Spark execution engine. )…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Comparative analysis, published in [9] and [10], shows that the performance of Flink and Spark are remarkably similar, while the performance of Spark and SciDB are very different, with SciDB faster then Spark when operations involve selections and aggregates (as they are facilitated by an array organization); whereas, Spark is faster than SciDB in JOIN and MAP operations (thanks to the general power of the Spark execution engine. )…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(i) In terms of processing speed, Apache Flink outperforms other resource management frameworks for small, medium, and large datasets [30,36]. However, during our own set of experiments on Amazon EC2 cluster with varied task managers settings (1-4 task managers per node), Flink failed to complete custom smaller size JVM dataset jobs due to inefficient memory management of Flink memory manager.…”
Section: Observations and Findingsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The study results showed that Spark performed up to three times better than MapReduce for most of the cases. Bertoni et al [36] performed the experimental evaluation of Apache Flink and Storm using large genomic dataset data on Amazon EC2 cloud. Apache Flink was superior to Storm while performing histogram and map operations while Storm outperformed Flink while genomic join application was deployed.…”
Section: Processing Speedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We are currently completing the cluster installation at CINECA, so we have not yet a full set of performance figures. However, in [5] we have deployed the architecture discussed in this section on the Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud, using a configuration with m3.2xlarge machines, each with 8 virtual CPUs, 30GB of memory, and 2 x80 GB of SSD storage. The testing setup contained one driver node and three configurations of slave nodes, set at 10, 15, and 19 nodes respectively.…”
Section: Performance Testingmentioning
confidence: 99%