> Many of the alternates (including linux cli stuff) that are much faster require a re-thinking of attitude, don't work where there are tens to hundreds of people submitting queries, or require different skills.
I doubt the point of the article was to suggest that linux cli stuff would scale to hundreds of users on the same host, but, if each of those users has a host of their very own, such as a laptop, the model could scale very well indeed, for small enough datasets.
> I wouldn't recommend to most CIOs they replace Hadoop in all or maybe even most cases, even for few-TB data sets and smaller.
Well, as you point out later, regarding familiarity, once it's in, it's probably too late. What about for a new implementation?
In answering this question, don't get too hung up on a literal interpretation of "single" server being exactly one. For example, a traditional RDBMS with one or more replicas (for performance, redundancy, or both) would still fall under the single server model. Really, it's about the non-distributed-computing option.
> if they're concerned with efficiency.
The fact that this is an "if" (and I do know that it is, even for startups) is bewildering to me, even more so in the context of distributed architectures where scaling is less linear the more data that has to be shared.
I doubt the point of the article was to suggest that linux cli stuff would scale to hundreds of users on the same host, but, if each of those users has a host of their very own, such as a laptop, the model could scale very well indeed, for small enough datasets.
> I wouldn't recommend to most CIOs they replace Hadoop in all or maybe even most cases, even for few-TB data sets and smaller.
Well, as you point out later, regarding familiarity, once it's in, it's probably too late. What about for a new implementation?
In answering this question, don't get too hung up on a literal interpretation of "single" server being exactly one. For example, a traditional RDBMS with one or more replicas (for performance, redundancy, or both) would still fall under the single server model. Really, it's about the non-distributed-computing option.
> if they're concerned with efficiency.
The fact that this is an "if" (and I do know that it is, even for startups) is bewildering to me, even more so in the context of distributed architectures where scaling is less linear the more data that has to be shared.