Earlier quoted context omitted.
They all sucked. MapR sucked the least. Considering a comparable EMC solution was ~20x more expensive and less flexible, MapR happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right software but blew it because they decided they knew better what the customers needed to buy vs what the customers wanted to buy. Fundamentally, file system clusters are a very difficult business to get into and make enough mone…
The sweet spot you describe sounds like Quobyte to me.
MapR may shut down as investor pulls out after ‘extremely poor results’
81–84 of 84 posts
...except for the "proven solution" part, Quobyte marketing VP.
Re: MapR may shut down as investor pulls out after ‘extremely poor results’
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
And MapR is so much more efficient than vanilla Hadoop, AWS definitely makes more money off the less polished yet mainstream version.
IMO it is not a fair comparison between EMR and MapR flavor of hadoop as they are designed for different usecases. MapR and other flavors of hadoop are engineered to make the task of administering a long running cluster easy. In comparison, EMR has a rudimentary set of tools for peaking into a running cluster. Whereas AWS offering is ideally suited for transient clusters. It relies on other solutions like Athena, Red…
I think we are talking past each other. MapR is a highly tuned system compiled to native binaries. It has nothing to do with the emphermality of the clusters, it has to do with job runtimes.