spark-fast-tests VS rupy

I was a Databricks user for 5 years and spent 95% of my time developing Spark code in IDEs. See the spark-daria and spark-fast-tests projects as Scala examples. I developed internal libraries with all the business logic. The Databricks notebooks would consist of a few lines of code that would invoke a function in the proprietary Spark codebase. The proprietary Spark codebase would depend on the OSS libraries I developed in parallel.

https://github.com/MrPowers/spark-fast-tests https://github.com/97arushisharma/Scala_Practice/tree/master/BigData_Analysis_with_Scala_and_Spark/wikipedia

If the majority of your stuff is not UDF-based there is an OS solution to run assertion tests against full data frames called spark-fast-tests. The idea here is similar in that you have a it notebook that calls your actual notebook against a staged input reads the output and compares it to a prefabed expected output. This does take a bit of setup and trial and error but it’s the closest I’ve been able to get to proper automated regression testing in databricks

I am the author of spark-fast-tests and chispa, libraries for unit testing Scala Spark / PySpark code.

I built daria (https://github.com/MrPowers/spark-daria) to make it easier to write Spark and spark-fast-tests (https://github.com/MrPowers/spark-fast-tests) to provide a good testing workflow.

quinn (https://github.com/MrPowers/quinn) and chispa (https://github.com/MrPowers/chispa) are the PySpark equivalents.

Built bebe (https://github.com/MrPowers/bebe) to expose the Spark Catalyst expressions that aren't exposed to the Scala / Python APIs.

Also build spark-sbt.g8 to create a Spark project with a single command: https://github.com/MrPowers/spark-sbt.g8

I've built popular PySpark (quinn, chispa) and Scala Spark (spark-daria, spark-fast-tests) libraries.

I have been running a Raspberry 2 cluster for 10 years: http://host.rupy.se

A few weeks back the first SD card to fail got so corrupted it failed to reboot!

My key learning is use oversized cards, because then the bitcycle will wear slower!

I'm going from 32GB to 256/512/1024!

How this article does not mention SSE, comet or chunking escapes me.

What does their definition of event-driven really look like in practice.

Nobody has a clue.

Here is the ideal event driven system, it's async-to-async: https://github.com/tinspin/rupy/wiki/Fuse

The example is not working because I had to shut down the services for multiple reasons, but the high level of it is that you use 4 (potentially different) threads to do one request/response middle man transaction.

That way you have _zero_ io-wait or idling. I'm surprised nobody has copied this approach since I invented it 10 years ago. I understand why though you need your entire chain to be async and that means rewriting everything and that is a big risk when it's hard to debug.

But if you succeed you can build something that is 10x perf/watt than all other implementations. Which is going to be important when interest rates go higher and crash our entire industry.

The hardware is peaking.

So software is where you can make the difference: http://host.rupy.se

I think we're all confused over the definition. Also one might understand what all the proponents are talking about better if they think about this more as a process and not some technological solution:

https://github.com/tinspin/rupy/wiki/Process

All input I have is you want your code to run on many machines, in fact you want it to run the same on all machines you need to deliver and preferably more. Vertically and horizontally at the same time, so your services only call localhost but in many separate places.

This in turn mandates a distributed database. And later you discover it has to be capable of async-to-async = no blocking ever anywhere in the whole solution.

The way I do this is I hot-deploy my applications async. to all servers in the cluster, this is what a cluster node looks like in practice (the name next to Host: is the node): http://host.rupy.se if you click "api & metrics" you'll see the services.

With this not only do you get scalability, but also redundancy and development is maintained at live coding levels.

I have hosted my own web server both physically and codevise since 2014.

It's on a Raspberry 2 cluster:

http://host.rupy.se

Since 2016 i have my own database also coded from scratch:

http://root.rupy.se

We need to implement HTTP/1.1 with less bloat, a C non-blocking web server that can share memory between threads is probably the most interesting project for humans right now, is anyone working on that?

I have one in Java: https://github.com/tinspin/rupy

Here is the 2000 lines of code of the entire database: http://root.rupy.se/code?path=/Root.java

And here you can try it out: http://root.rupy.se

The smallest PaaS you have ever seen is one order of magnitude larger than mine: https://github.com/tinspin/rupy

And I bet you the same goes for performance, if not two!

The data is here: http://fuse.rupy.se/about.html

Under Performance. Per watt the fuse/rupy platform completely crushes all competition because of 2 reasons:

- Event driven protocol design, averages at about 4 messages/player/second (means you cannot do spraying or headshots f.ex. which is another feature in my game design opinion).

- Java's memory model with atomic concurrency which needs a VM and GC (C++ copied that memory model in C++11, but it failed completely because they lack both VM and GC, but that model is still to this day the one C++ uses), you can read more about this here: https://github.com/tinspin/rupy/wiki

You can argue those points are bad arguments, but if you look at performance per watt with some consideration for developer friendlyness, I'm pretty sure in 100 years we will still be coding minimalist JavaSE on the server and vanilla C (compiled with C++ compiler) on the client.