Skip to main content

Anti-Patterns in Big Data convergence with M2M

By Desk Editor

It is almost an open secret right now that the next big trend in Big Data space would be the adoption in M2M and ‘Internet of Things’ arena. If any major indicators of the battle that would happen here need to be gauged, then one needs to look at major GE investment in Pivotal and Intel’s own distribution of Hadoop.

However, as the buzz goes around, there are still some M2M (machine to machine) anti-patterns which seem to be hyped as the inhibitors.
Defining Anti-pattern:
“there must be at least two key elements present …:
  • Some repeated pattern of action, process or structure that initially appears to be beneficial, but ultimately produces more bad consequences than beneficial results, and
  • An alternative solution exists that is clearly documented, proven in actual practice and repeatable.”
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pattern

Let’s analyze 4 key notions and assuming them to be anti-patterns, counter them with possible solutions trade-off.

1)      The silos of Internet of Things

While it is true that the current focus is ‘Internet of Things’, the reality is we still have only ‘Intranet of things’. This means that the data exists in enterprise or organization silos only and it is rare to see devices of 1 organization talking to devices outside the boundary to devices of another organization.

  • Data Mashups – It may be a while before data will co-exist in some industry wide warehouse. Till that time, data mashups can be of excellent assistance. Therefore, it makes excellent sense to utilize the current data in silos, mash them up with other available sources and drive business insights from them.


2)     Trust among talking Machines

 ‘Trust’ is a widely debated topic is any sort of information exchange. In case of social networks, developing ‘trust’ still involves manual intervention. For instance, we share the data (status, pics, comments) on most social networks like Facebook only with trusted group of friends. The friend requests itself are accepted on social networks only from ‘trusted’ people. The same concept extends over in machine to machine requests albeit with less manual intervention and intelligence.

  • Analogous implementations – Many industries like financial services have successfully implemented trust based model for systems. Similar analogous beginnings for M2M may be easier to replicate and succeed.


3)     Skill grill

Both M2M and Big Data implementations are specialized vendor implementations. There is a scarcity of solutions, vendors and skilled work force currently for it.

  • Training - While it is a big talking point that Big Data, Hadoop skills are still far and few, the same discussion also extends over to M2M skills. As in Hadoop, where training and community outreach has been increasing penetration, so is it for M2M.


4)     Money to money

Most projects are guided by a strong monetization factor and the ROI figures dominate the proposal clearance. Currently, M2M is still in rudimentary stage and enterprise still needs to en-cash over investments being made.

  • Data as an asset- As a known business model, enterprises are known to reap rich rewards on their data assets. What may be of monetary value to one CSP (for instance), the same may be a competitive differentiator and strategic asset for the other. Consequently, blind focus on immediate returns may not yield any benefit.


While each firm may employ its own methods and strategies to deal with the M2M bubble, it is evident that Big Data technologies like Hadoop can be a key differentiator in creating the niche platform base. To that end, we will keep monitoring the space as the projects evolve over to create differentiated solutions.

----------------------------------
Top image source: Navigant Research
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In-memory data model with Apache Gora

By Sachin Ghai
Open source in-memory data model and persistence for big data framework Apache Gora™ version 0.3, was released in May 2013. The 0.3 release offers significant improvements and changes to a number of modules including a number of bug fixes. However, what may be of significant interest to the DynamoDB community will be the addition of a gora-dynamodb datastore for mapping and persisting objects to Amazon's DynamoDB. Additionally the release includes various improvements to the gora-core and gora-cassandra modules as well as a new Web Services API implementation which enables users to extend Gora to any cloud storage platform of their choice. This 2-part post provides commentary on all of the above and a whole lot more, expanding to cover where Gora fits in within the NoSQL and Big Data space, the development challenges and features which have been baked into Gora 0.3 and finally what we have on the road map for the 0.4 development drive.
Introducing Apache Gora Although there are var…
4 comments
Read more

Amazon DynamoDB datastore for Gora

By Sachin Ghai
What was initially suggested during causal conversation at ApacheCon2011 in November 2011 as a “neat idea”, would soon become prime ground for Gora's first taste of participation within Google's Summer of Code program. Initially, the project, titled Amazon DynamoDB datastore for Gora, merely aimed to extend the Gora framework to Amazon DynamoDB. However, it seem became obvious that the issue would include much more than that simple vision.

The Gora 0.3 Toolbox We briefly digress to discuss some other noticeable additions to Gora in 0.3, namely: Modification of the Query interface: The Query interface was amended from Query<K, T> to Query<K, T extends Persistent> to be more precise and explicit for developers. Consequently all implementors and users of the Query interface can only pass object's of Persistent type. Logging improvements for data store mappings: A key aspect of using Gora well is the establishment and accurate definitio…
1 comment
Read more

Data deduplication tactics with HDFS and MapReduce

By Desk Editor
As the amount of data continues to grow exponentially, there has been increased focus on stored data reduction methods. Data compression, single instance store and data deduplication are among the common techniques employed for stored data reduction.
Deduplication often refers to elimination of redundant subfiles (also known as chunks, blocks, or extents). Unlike compression, data is not changed and eliminates storage capacity for identical data. Data deduplication offers significant advantage in terms of reduction in storage, network bandwidth and promises increased scalability.
From a simplistic use case perspective, we can see application in removing duplicates in Call Detail Record (CDR) for a Telecom carrier. Similarly, we may apply the technique to optimize on network traffic carrying the same data packets.
Some of the common methods for data deduplication in storage architecture include hashing, binary comparison and delta differencing. In this post, we focus on how MapReduce and…
Post a Comment
Read more