But since you did not answer "yes" nor "no" ... we can conclude that no, you have never used Hadoop in production.
And since you've completely failed to respond to any of the reasons why Hadoop is inappropriate for the task at hand we can conclude that you don't have a clue about image processing.
Simply a case of the hammer wielder seeing everything as a nail. Last year it was "use a database"; this year "ooh, ooh, ooh, Hadoop" regardless of the problem, and next year it'll no doubt be Node:js.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
"Last year it was "use a database"; this year "ooh, ooh, ooh, Hadoop""
Just pointing out that you are rejecting technology unfairly. Without even having tried it. Which you have not, even though you tailor your language to imply that you have.
| [reply] [d/l] [select] |
I've not rejected Hadoop. I even suggested it here a couple of weeks ago.
I'm simply not recommending it for this as it is inappropriate. To summarise: You cannot force fit variable size and (typically huge) 3D image files into fix-sized aggregated packets; nor can you process images line-by-line from STDIN as is required by Hadoop streaming.
I'm not rejecting the tool; I'm reject the suggestion for mis-application of that tool. The OP reads and makes up his own mind on the matter.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |