Book Recommender System using Hadoop

Project Report On

BOOK RECOMMENDER SYSTEM USING HADOOP By Ankit Kumar Das (04710402710) Pranay Khatri (03010402710) Shreya Tripathi (05110407210)

Submitted in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Computer Science & Engineering Under the Guidance of Mrs Shaveta Tatwani

Department of Computer Science and Engineering Amity School of Engineering and Technology (Affiliated to G.G.S.I.P.University ) New Delhi - 110061

CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the Project Report titled “Book Recommender System using Hadoop” Done by Ankit Kumar Das (04710402710) Pranay Khatri (03010402710) Shreya Tripathi (05110402710)

is an authentic work carried out by them under my guidance at : AMITY SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, Bijwasan The matter embodied in this project report has not been submitted earlier for the award of any degree or diploma to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Mrs. Shaveta Tatwani

Prof. M.N.Gupta

Asst. Professor

Head of Department

Dept. of CSE/IT

Dept. of CSE/IT

i

AKNOWLEDGEMENT First and foremost, our acknowledgements are due to Prof. B.P.Singh, Senior Director and Prof. Rekha Aggarwal, Director for the education under their guidance that has provided strong fundamentals, positive competition and unmatched learning experience.

I express our gratitude to our esteemed Professor M.N. Gupta, (Head, Department of CSE & IT) and our guide Asst. Professor, Mrs Shaveta Tatwani. Their inspiration, motivation, suggestion and invaluable guidance enabled us to develop the minor project. Their careful observations and precise ideas were an immense help in refining our content.

Ankit Kumar Das

Pranay Khatri

(047/B.TECH(CSE)/ASET/14)

(030/B.TECH(CSE)/ASET/14)

Shreya Tripathi (051/B.TECH(CSE)/ASET/14)

ii

ABSTRACT Recommender Systems are new generation internet tool that help user in navigating through information on the internet and receive information related to their preferences. Although most of the time recommender systems are applied in the area of online shopping and entertainment domains like movie and music, yet their applicability is being researched upon in other area as well. This report presents an overview of the Recommender Systems which are currently working in the domain of online book shopping. This report also proposes a new book recommender system that combines user choices with not only similar users but other users as well to give diverse recommendation that change over time. The overall architecture of the proposed system is presented and its implementation with a prototype design is described. Lastly, the report presents empirical evaluation of the system based on a survey reflecting the impact of such diverse recommendations on the user choices.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Certificate …………………………………………..……………………….…………i Acknowledgement ……………………………………...………………………….….ii Abstract ………………………………………………..………………………….….iii Table of Contents ………………………………………..…………………………...iv List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………vi 1. Introduction….………………………..………………..…………………...……………..1 1.1 Recommender Systems 1.2 Apache Hadoop 2. Recommender Systems……………………………………………………………………2 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Content based Filtering 2.3 Collaborative Filtering 2.3.1 User based Collaborative Filtering 2.3.2 Item based Collaborative Filtering 2.4 Similarity Measures 2.4.1 Cosine based Similarity 2.4.2 Pearson Correlation based Similarity 2.4.3 Cooccurrence based Similarity 2.4.4 Euclidian Distance based Similarity 2.4.5 Tanimoto Coefficient based Similarity 2.4.6 Log Likelihood based Similarity 2.5 Challenges and Issues 3. Hadoop Distributed File System…….………...………………………………………...11 3.1 Overview 3.2 Assumptions and Goals 3.3 Architecture 3.3.1 Namenode 3.3.1.1 Checkpoint Node 3.3.1.2 Backup Node 3.3.2 DataNode 3.3.3 HDFS Client 3.4 Data Replication 3.4.1 Replica Placement 3.4.2 Replica Selection 3.4.3 Replica Selection 3.5 Data Organisation 3.5.1 Data Blocks 3.5.3 Staging 3.5.3 Replication and Pipelining 3.6 HDFS Features 3.6.1 Communication Protocols iv

3.6.2 Data Disk Failure, Heartbeats and Re replication 3.6.3 Cluster Rebalancing 3.6.4 Data Integrity 3.6.5 Metadata Disk Failure 3.7 Advantages and Disadvantages 4. Hadoop MapReduce……………..……………………………………………………….24 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Inputs and Outputs 4.3 User Interfaces 4.3.1 Mapper 4.3.2 Reducer 4.3.3 Partitioner 4.3.4 Reporter 4.3.5 Output Collector 4.4 Job Configuration 4.5 MapReduce Features 5. Item Based Recommendation Algorithm……………….……………………….……30 5.1 Algorithm 5.2 Logical Parts of Code 5.2.1 Preparation of Preference Matrix 5.2.2 Generation of Similarity Matrix 5.2.3 Preparation for Matrix Multiplication 5.2.4 Matrix Multiplication 6. System Preparation and Implementation…………………………………………….33 6.1 Runtime Environment 6.2 Software and Language Versions 6.3 Hardware Specification of each Hadoop Node 6.4 Hadoop Configuration 6.5 Starting the Cluster 6.5.1 Formatting the Namenode 6.5.2 Starting HDFS daemons 6.5.3 Starting mapred daemons 6.5.4 Starting the Job 6.6 Monitoring the Cluster 7. Results and Conclusion…………………………………………………………………40 7.1 Results 7.1.1 Run Time 7.1.2 Recommendations 7.2 Conclusions 8. Future Scope………………………………….….…………...………......………………46 9. References…………………………………………………….……………………..........47

v

LIST OF FIGURES Figure no.

Name

Page no.

2.1

User based Collaborative Filtering

5

2.2

Item based Collaborative Filtering

5

2.3

Item-Item Similarity

6

2.4

Tanimoto Coefficient

8

3.1

HDFS Architecture

13

3.2

Reading a File

16

3.3

Writing to a file

17

3.4

Block Replication

18

4.1

Map reduce Framework

25

4.2

Task Environment

28

6.1

Formatting Namenode

36

6.2

HDFS daemons

36

6.3

Mapred daemons

37

6.4

Starting Job

37

6.5

Namenode Interface

37

6.6

JobTracker Interface

38

6.7

Scheduling Interface 1

38

6.8

Scheduling Interface 2

39

7.1

Average Run Time

41

7.2

Similarity Cooccurrence Recommendations

42

7.3

Tanimoto Recommendations

42

7.4

Loglikelihood Recommendations

43

7.5

Euclidian Distance Recommendation

43

7.6

Pearson Coefficient Recommendations

44

vi

LIST OF TABLES Table no.

Name

Page no.

2.1

User Ratings

4

7.1

Time Taken

40

vii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Recommender Systems Recommender systems are widespread tools that are employed by a wide range of organisations and companies for recommending items such as movies, books and even employees for projects. But with the advent of big data it has become difficult to process the large amount of data for recommendations. Due to this reason, Apache Hadoop is employed for scalability, reliability and faster processing. Recommender systems (sometimes replacing "system" with a synonym such as platform or engine) are a subclass of information filtering system that seek to predict the 'rating' or 'preference' that user would give to an item. Recommender systems have become extremely common in recent years, and are applied in a variety of applications. The most popular ones are probably movies, music, news, books, research articles, search queries, social tags, and products in general

1.2 Apache Hadoop The Apache Hadoop software library is a framework that allows for the distributed processing of large data sets across clusters of computers using simple programming models. It is designed to scale up from single servers to thousands of machines, each offering local computation and storage. Rather than rely on hardware to deliver high-availability, the library itself is designed to detect and handle failures at the application layer, so delivering a highlyavailable service on top of a cluster of computers, each of which may be prone to failures [1]. The project includes the following modules: 

Hadoop Common: The common utilities that support the other Hadoop modules.



Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS): A distributed file system that provides high-throughput access to application data.



Hadoop MapReduce: A YARN-based system for parallel processing of large data sets.

1

CHAPTER 2 RECOMMENDER SYSTEMS 2.1 Introduction Recommender Systems (RSs) are software tools and techniques providing suggestions for items to be of use to a user. The suggestions relate to various decision-making processes, such as what items to buy, what music to listen to, what books to read or what online news to read. ―Item‖ is the general term used to denote what the system recommends to users. A RS normally focuses on a specific type of item (e.g., CDs, or news) and accordingly its design, its graphical user interface, and the core recommendation technique used to generate the recommendations are all customized to provide useful and effective suggestions for that specific type of item. RSs are primarily directed towards individuals who lack sufficient personal experience or competence to evaluate the potentially overwhelming number of alternative items that a Web site, for example, may offer. In most cases, people are faced with choices and very large data volumes, and searching all of them is out of user‘ capability. This problem is called information overload. [1] A case in point is a book recommender system that assists users to select a book to read. In the popular Web site, Amazon.com, the site employs a RS to personalize the online store for each customer. Since recommendations are usually personalized, different users or user groups receive diverse suggestions. In their simplest form, personalized recommendations are offered as ranked lists of items. In performing this ranking, RSs try to predict what the most suitable products or services are, based on the user‘s preferences and constraints. In order to complete such a computational task, RSs collect from users their preferences, which are either explicitly expressed, e.g., as ratings for products, or are inferred by interpreting user actions. For instance, a RS may consider the navigation to a particular product page as an implicit sign of preference for the items shown on that page. RSs development initiated from a rather simple observation: individuals often rely on recommendations provided by others in making routine, daily decisions. For example it is common to rely on what one‘s peers recommend when selecting a book to read; employers count on recommendation letters in their recruiting decisions; and when selecting a movie to watch, individuals tend to read and rely on the movie reviews that 2

a film critic has written and which appear in the newspaper they read. In seeking to mimic this behaviour, the first RSs applied algorithms to leverage recommendations produced by a community of users to deliver recommendations to an active user, i.e., a user looking for suggestions. The recommendations were for items that similar users (those with similar tastes) had liked. This approach is termed collaborative-filtering and its rationale is that if the active user agreed in the past with some users, then the other recommendations coming from these similar users should be relevant as well and of interest to the active user. As ecommerce Web sites began to develop, a pressing need emerged for providing recommendations derived from filtering the whole range of available alternatives. Users were finding it very difficult to arrive at the most appropriate choices from the immense variety of items (products and services) that these Web sites were offering. The explosive growth and variety of information available on the Web and the rapid introduction of new e-business services (buying products, product comparison, auction, etc.) frequently overwhelmed users, leading them to make poor decisions. The availability of choices, instead of producing a benefit, started to decrease users‘ wellbeing. It was understood that while choice is good, more choice is not always better. Indeed, choice, with its implications of freedom, autonomy, and self-determination can become excessive, creating a sense that freedom may come to be regarded as a kind of miseryinducing tyranny. RSs have proved in recent years to be a valuable means for coping with the information overload problem. Ultimately a RS addresses this phenomenon by pointing the user towards the items in which he/she may be interested.

2.2 Content based Filtering Content-based recommender systems work with profiles of users that are created at the beginning. A profile has information about a user and his taste. Generally, when creating a profile, recommender systems make a survey, to get initial information about a user in order to avoid the new-user problem. In the recommendation process, the engine compares the items that were already positively rated by the user with the items he didn‘t rate and looks for similarities

[2]

. Those items that are mostly similar to the positively rated ones, will be

recommended to the user.

2.3 Collaborative Filtering

3

Recommendations can be based on demographics of the users, overall top selling items, or past buying habit of users as a predictor of future items. Collaborative Filtering (CF)

[2] [3]

is

the most successful recommendation technique to date. The idea of collaborative filtering is in finding users in a community that share appreciations. If two users have same or almost same rated items in common, then they have similar tastes. Such users build a group or a so called neighbourhood. A user gets recommendations to those items that he/she hasn‘t rated before, but that were already positively rated by users in his/her neighbourhood. Table 2.1 shows that all three users rated the books positively and with similar marks. That means that they have similar taste and build a neighbourhood. The user A hasn‘t rated the book ―ASP.Net‖, which probably mean that he hasn‘t watched it yet. As the movie was positively rated by the other users, he will get this item recommended. As opposed to simpler recommender systems where recommendations base on the most rated item and the most popular item methods, collaborative recommender systems care about the taste of user. The taste is considered to be constant or at least change slowly.

Table 2.1: User Ratings Collaborative filtering is widely used in e-commerce. Customers can rate books, songs, movies and then get recommendations regarding those issues in future. Moreover collaborative filtering is utilized in browsing of certain documents (e.g. documents among scientific works, articles, and magazines).

2.3.1 User Based Collaborative Filtering

4

In the user-based approach, the users perform the main role. If certain majority of the customers has the same taste then they join into one group. Recommendations are given to user based on evaluation of items by other users form the same group, with whom he/she shares common preferences. If the item was positively rated by the community, it will be recommended to the user. Thus in the user-based approach the items that were already rated by the user before play an important role in searching a group that shares appreciations with him.

Fig. 2.1: User Based Collaborative Filtering

2.3.2 Item Based Collaborative Filtering The item-based approach looks into the set of items the target user has rated and computes how similar they are to the target item i and then selects k most similar items {i1, i2, . . . , ik }. At the same time their corresponding similarities {si1, si2, . . . , sik } are also computed. Once the most similar items are found, the prediction is then computed by taking a weighted average of the target user‘s ratings on these similar items [4].

Fig. 2.2: Item based Collaborative Filtering 5

2.4 Similarity Measures One critical step in the item-based collaborative filtering algorithm is to compute the similarity between items and then to select the most similar items. The basic idea in similarity computation between two items i and j is to first isolate the users who have rated both of these items and then to apply a similarity computation technique to determine the similarity si,j [5] .

Fig. 2.3: Item-Item Similarity There are different ways to compute the similarity between items. These are cosine-based similarity, correlation-based similarity and adjusted-cosine similarity.

2.4.1 Cosine based Similarity In this case, two items are thought of as two vectors in the m dimensional user-space. The similarity between them is measured by computing the cosine of the angle between these two vectors. Formally, in the m × n ratings matrix, similarity between items i and j , denoted by sim(i, j ) is given by

where ―·‖ denotes the dot-product of the two vectors.

2.4.2 Pearson Correlation-based Similarity 6

The Pearson correlation of two series is the ratio of their covariance to the product of their variances. Covariance is a measure of how much two series move together in absolute terms; it‘s big when the series moves far in the same direction from their means in the same places. Dividing by the variances merely normalizes for the absolute size of their changes. The Pearson correlation is a number between –1 and 1 that measures the tendency of two series of numbers, paired up one-to-one, to move together. That is to say, it measures how likely a number in one series is to be relatively large when the corresponding number in the other series is high, and vice versa. It measures the tendency of the numbers to move together proportionally, such that there‘s a roughly linear relationship between the values in one series and the other. When this tendency is high, the correlation is close to 1. When there appears to be little relationship at all, the value is near 0. When there appears to be an opposing relationship—one series‘ numbers are high exactly when the other series‘ numbers are low— the value is near –1. In this case, similarity between two items i and j is measured by computing the Pearson-r correlation corr i, j. To make the correlation computation accurate we must first isolate the co-rated cases (i.e., cases where the users rated both i and j). Let the set of users who both rated i and j are denoted by U then the correlation similarity is given by

2.4.3 Co-occurrence-based Similarity Instead of computing the similarity between every pair of items, in this metric, the algorithm will compute the number of times each pair of items occurs together in some user‘s list of preferences, in order to fill out the matrix. Co-occurrence is like similarity; the more two items turn up together, the more related or similar they probably are. Producing the matrix is a simple matter of counting. The entries in the matrix aren‘t affected by preference values. These values will enter the computation later

2.4.4 Euclidian Distance based Similarity This implementation is based on the distance between users. The users are seen as points in a space of many dimensions (as many dimensions as there are items), whose coordinates are

7

preference values. This similarity metric computes the Euclidean distance d between two such user points. This value alone doesn‘t constitute a valid similarity metric, because larger values would mean more-distant, and therefore less similar, users. The value should be smaller when users are more similar. Therefore, the implementation actually returns 1 / (1+d). This similarity metric never returns a negative value, but larger values still mean more similarity.

2.4.5 Tanimoto Coefficient based Similarity TanimotoCoefficientSimilarity is an implementation which does not take into account the preference values specified for the users. It is based on (surprise) the Tanimoto coefficient. This value is also known as the Jaccard coefficient. It‘s the number of items that two users express some preference for, divided by the number of items that either user expresses some preference for. In other words, it‘s the ratio of the size of the intersection to the size of the union of their preferred items. It has the required properties: when two users‘ items completely overlap, the result is 1.0. When they have nothing in common, it‘s 0.0. The value is never negative, but that‘s OK. It‘s possible to expand the results into the range –1 to 1 with some simple math: similarity = 2 • similarity – 1. It won‘t matter to the framework.

Fig. 2.4: Tanimoto Coefficient

2.4.6 Log likelihood based Similarity Log-likelihood–based similarity is similar to the Tanimoto coefficient–based similarity, though it‘s more difficult to understand intuitively. It‘s another metric that doesn‘t take account of individual preference values. Like the Tanimoto coefficient, it‘s based on the 8

number of items in common between two users, but its value is more an expression of how unlikely it is for two users to have so much overlap, given the total number of items out there and the number of items each user has a preference for. It is a probability based distance. The distance between two clusters is related to the decrease in log-likelihood as they are combined into one cluster. In calculating log-likelihood, normal distributions for continuous variables and multinomial distributions for categorical variables are assumed. It is also assumed that the variables are independent of each other, and so are the cases. The distance between clusters j and s is defined as:

Where

2.5 Challenges and Issues 

Cold Start It‘s difficult to give recommendations to new users as his profile is almost empty and he hasn‘t rated any items yet so his taste is unknown to the system. This is called the coldstart problem[6]. In some recommender systems this problem is solved with survey when creating a profile. Items can also have a cold-start when they are new in the system and haven‘t been rated before. Both of these problems can be also solved with hybrid approaches.



Trust The voices of people with a short history may not be that relevant as the voices of those who have rich history in their profiles. The issue of trust arises towards evaluations of a certain customer. The problem could be solved by distribution of priorities to the users. 9



Scalability With the growth of numbers of users and items, the system needs more resources for processing information and forming recommendations. Majority of resources is consumed with the purpose of determining users with similar tastes, and goods with similar descriptions. This problem is also solved by the combination of various types of filters and physical improvement of systems. Parts of numerous computations may also be implemented offline in order to accelerate issuance of recommendations online.



Sparsity In online shops that have a huge amount of users and items there are almost always users that have rated just a few items. Using collaborative and other approaches recommender systems generally create neighbourhoods of users using their profiles. If a user has evaluated just few items then it‘s pretty difficult to determine his taste and he/she could be related to the wrong neighbourhood. Sparsity is the problem of lack of information.



Privacy Privacy has been the most important problem. In order to receive the most accurate and correct recommendation, the system must acquire the most amount of information possible about the user, including demographic data, and data about the location of a particular user. Naturally, the question of reliability, security and confidentiality of the given information arises. Many online shops offer effective protection of privacy of the users by utilizing specialized algorithms and programs.

10

CHAPTER 3 HADOOP DISTRIBUTED FILE SYSTEM 3.1 Overview Hadoop comes with a distributed filesystem called HDFS (Hadoop Distributed Filesystem). HDFS is highly fault-tolerant and is designed to be deployed on low-cost hardware. HDFS provides high throughput access to application data and is suitable for applications that have large data sets [7]. The Hadoop filesystem is designed for storing petabytes of a file with streaming data access using the idea that most efficient data processing pattern is a write-once, readmany- times pattern. HDFS stores metadata on a dedicated server, called NameNode. Application data are stored on other servers called DataNodes. All the servers are fully connected and communicate with each other using TCP-based protocols.

3.2 Assumptions and Goals  Hardware Failure Hardware failure is the norm rather than the exception. An HDFS instance may consist of hundreds or thousands of server machines, each storing part of the file system‘s data. The fact that there are a large number of components and that each component has a non-trivial probability of failure means that some component of HDFS is always non-functional. Therefore, detection of faults and quick, automatic recovery from them is a core architectural goal of HDFS.  Streaming Data Access Applications that run on HDFS need streaming access to their data sets. They are not general purpose applications that typically run on general purpose file systems. HDFS is designed more for batch processing rather than interactive use by users. The emphasis is on high throughput of data access rather than low latency of data access. POSIX imposes many hard requirements that are not needed for applications that are targeted for HDFS. POSIX semantics in a few key areas has been traded to increase data throughput rates.  Large Data Sets

11

Applications that run on HDFS have large data sets. A typical file in HDFS is gigabytes to terabytes in size. Thus, HDFS is tuned to support large files. It should provide high aggregate data bandwidth and scale to hundreds of nodes in a single cluster. It should support tens of millions of files in a single instance.  Simple Coherency Model HDFS applications need a write-once-read-many access model for files. A file once created, written, and closed need not be changed. This assumption simplifies data coherency issues and enables high throughput data access. A MapReduce application or a web crawler application fits perfectly with this model. There is a plan to support appending-writes to files in the future.  ―Moving Computation is Cheaper than Moving Data‖ A computation requested by an application is much more efficient if it is executed near the data it operates on. This is especially true when the size of the data set is huge. This minimizes network congestion and increases the overall throughput of the system. The assumption is that it is often better to migrate the computation closer to where the data is located rather than moving the data to where the application is running. HDFS provides interfaces for applications to move themselves closer to where the data is located.  Portability Across Heterogeneous Hardware and Software Platforms HDFS has been designed to be easily portable from one platform to another. This facilitates widespread adoption of HDFS as a platform of choice for a large set of applications.

3.3 Architecture HDFS is based on master/slave architecture. A HDFS cluster consists of a single NameNode (as master) and a number of DataNodes (as slaves). The NameNode and DataNodes are pieces of software designed to run on commodity machines. These machines typically run a GNU/Linux operating system (OS). The usage of the highly portable Java language means that HDFS can be deployed on a wide range of machines. A typical deployment has a dedicated machine that runs only the NameNode software. Each of the other machines in the cluster runs one instance of the DataNodes software. The architecture does not preclude running multiple DataNodes on the same machine but in a real deployment one machine usually runs one DataNode. 12

The existence of a single NameNode in a cluster greatly simplifies the architecture of the system. The NameNode is the arbitrator and repository for all HDFS metadata. The system is designed in such a way that user data never flows through the NameNode.

3.3.1 Namenode NameNode manages the filesystem namespace, metadata for all the files and directories in the tree.

Fig. 3.1: HDFS Architecture The file is divided into large blocks (typically 148 megabytes, but the user selectable file-byfile) and each block is independently replicated at multiple DataNodes (typically three, but user selectable file-by-file) to provide reliability. The NameNode maintains and stores the namespace tree and the mapping of file blocks to DataNodes persistently on the local disk in the form of two files: the namespace image and the edit log. The NameNode also knows the DataNodes on which all the blocks for a given file are located. However, it does not store block locations persistently, since this information is reconstructed from DataNodes when the system starts. On the NameNode failure, the filesystem becomes inaccessible because only NameNode knows how to reconstruct the files from the blocks on the DataNodes. So, for this reason, it is 13

important to make the NameNode resilient to failure, and Hadoop provides two mechanisms for this: Checkpoint Node and Backup Node. 3.3.1.1 Checkpoint Node Checkpoint is an image record written persistently to disk. NameNode uses two types of files to persist its namespace: - Fsimage: the latest checkpoint of the namespace - Edits: logs containing changes to the namespace; these logs are also called journals. NameNode creates an updated file system metadata by merging both files i.e. fsimage and edits on restart. The NameNode then overwrites fsimage with the new HDFS state and begins a new edits journal. The Checkpoint node periodically downloads the latest fsimage and edits from the active NameNode to create checkpoints by merging them locally and then to upload new checkpoints back to the active NameNode. This requires the same memory space as that of NameNode and so checkpoint needs to be run on separate machine. Namespace information lost if either the checkpoint or the journal is missing, so it is highly recommended to configure HDFS to store the checkpoint and journal in multiple storage directories. The Checkpoint node uses parameter fs.checkpoint.period to check the interval between two consecutive checkpoints. The Interval time is in seconds (default is 4600 second). The Edit log file size is specified by parameter fs.checkpoint.size (default size 64MB) and a checkpoint triggers if size exceeds. Multiple checkpoint nodes may be specified in the cluster configuration file. 3.3.1.2 Backup Node The Backup node has the same functionality as the Checkpoint node. In addition, it maintains an in-memory, up-to-date copy of the file system namespace that is always synchronized with the active NameNode state. Along with accepting a journal stream of the filesystem edits from the NameNode and persisting this to disk, the Backup node also applies those edits into its own copy of the namespace in memory, thus creating a backup of the namespace. Unlike the Checkpoint node, the Backup node has an up-to-date state of the namespace state in memory. The Backup node requires same RAM as of NameNode. The NameNode supports one Backup node at a time. No Checkpoint nodes may be registered if a Backup

14

node is in use. The Backup node takes care of the namespace data persistence and NameNode does not need to have persistent store.

3.3.2 DataNodes There are a number of DataNodes, usually one per node in the cluster, which manage storage attached to the nodes. HDFS exposes a file system namespace and allows user data to be stored in files. Internally, a file is split into one or more blocks and these blocks are stored in a set of DataNodes[7]. The NameNode executes the file system namespace operations such as opening, closing, and renaming files and directories. It also determines the mapping of blocks to DataNodes. DataNodes store and retrieve blocks when requested (by clients or the NameNode), and they report back to the NameNode periodically with lists of blocks they are storing. The DataNodes are responsible for serving read and write requests from the file system‘s clients. The DataNodes also perform block creation, deletion, and replication upon instruction from the NameNode. DataNodes and NameNode connections are established by handshake where namespace ID and the software version of the DataNodes are verified. The namespace ID is assigned to the file system instance when it is formatted. The namespace ID is stored persistently on all nodes of the cluster. A different namespace ID node cannot join the cluster. A new DataNode without any namespace ID can join the cluster and receive the cluster‘s namespace ID and DataNode registers with the NameNode with storage ID. A DataNode identifies block replicas in its possession to the NameNode by sending a block report. A block report contains the block id, the generation stamp and the length for each block replica the server hosts. The first block report is sent immediately after the DataNodes registrations. Subsequent block reports are sent every hour and provide the NameNode with an up-to date view of where block replicas are located on the cluster.

3.3.3 HDFS Client Reading a file To read a file, HDFS client first contacts NameNode. It returns list of addresses of the DataNodes that have a copy of the blocks of the file. Then client connects to the closest DataNodes directly for each block and requests the transfer of the desired block. Figure 7 shows the main sequence of events involved in reading data from HDFS.

15

Fig. 3.2: Reading a file Writing to a File For writing to a file, HDFS client first creates an empty file without any blocks. File creation is only possible when the client has writing permission and a new file does not exist in the system. NameNode records new file creation and allocates data blocks to list of suitable DataNodes to host replicas of the first block of the file. Replication of data makes DataNodes in pipeline. When the first block is filled, new DataNodes are requested to host replicas of the next block. A new pipeline is organized, and the client sends the further bytes of the file. Each choice of DataNodes is likely to be different. If a DataNode in pipeline fails while writing the data then pipeline is first closed and partial block on failed data node is deleted and failed DataNode is removed from the pipeline. New DataNodes in the pipeline are chosen to write remaining blocks of data.

16

Fig. 3.3: Writing to a file

3.4 Data Replication HDFS is designed to reliably store very large files across machines in a large cluster. It stores each file as a sequence of blocks; all blocks in a file except the last block are the same size. The blocks of a file are replicated for fault tolerance. The block size and replication factor are configurable per file. An application can specify the number of replicas of a file. The replication factor can be specified at file creation time and can be changed later. Files in HDFS are write-once and have strictly one writer at any time. The NameNode makes all decisions regarding replication of blocks. It periodically receives a Heartbeat and a Blockreport from each of the DataNodes in the cluster. Receipt of a Heartbeat implies that the DataNode is functioning properly. A Blockreport contains a list of all blocks on a DataNode.

17

Fig 3.4: Block Replication 3.4.1 Replica Placement The placement of replicas is critical to HDFS reliability and performance. Optimizing replica placement distinguishes HDFS from most other distributed file systems. This is a feature that needs lots of tuning and experience. The purpose of a rack-aware replica placement policy is to improve data reliability, availability, and network bandwidth utilization. The current implementation for the replica placement policy is a first effort in this direction. The shortterm goals of implementing this policy are to validate it on production systems, learn more about its behavior, and build a foundation to test and research more sophisticated policies. Large HDFS instances run on a cluster of computers that commonly spread across many racks. Communication between two nodes in different racks has to go through switches. In most cases, network bandwidth between machines in the same rack is greater than network bandwidth between machines in different racks. The NameNode determines the rack id each DataNode belongs to via the process outlined in Hadoop Rack Awareness. A simple but non-optimal policy is to place replicas on unique 18

racks. This prevents losing data when an entire rack fails and allows use of bandwidth from multiple racks when reading data. This policy evenly distributes replicas in the cluster which makes it easy to balance load on component failure. However, this policy increases the cost of writes because a write needs to transfer blocks to multiple racks. For the common case, when the replication factor is three, HDFS‘s placement policy is to put one replica on one node in the local rack, another on a node in a different (remote) rack, and the last on a different node in the same remote rack. This policy cuts the inter-rack write traffic which generally improves write performance. The chance of rack failure is far less than that of node failure; this policy does not impact data reliability and availability guarantees. However, it does reduce the aggregate network bandwidth used when reading data since a block is placed in only two unique racks rather than three. With this policy, the replicas of a file do not evenly distribute across the racks. One third of replicas are on one node, two thirds of replicas are on one rack, and the other third are evenly distributed across the remaining racks. This policy improves write performance without compromising data reliability or read performance. 3.4.2 Replica Selection To minimize global bandwidth consumption and read latency, HDFS tries to satisfy a read request from a replica that is closest to the reader. If there exists a replica on the same rack as the reader node, then that replica is preferred to satisfy the read request. If angg/ HDFS cluster spans multiple data centers, then a replica that is resident in the local data center is preferred over any remote replica. 3.4.3 Safemode On startup, the NameNode enters a special state called Safemode. Replication of data blocks does not occur when the NameNode is in the Safemode state. The NameNode receives Heartbeat and Blockreport messages from the DataNodes. A Blockreport contains the list of data blocks that a DataNode is hosting. Each block has a specified minimum number of replicas. A block is considered safely replicated when the minimum number of replicas of that data block has checked in with the NameNode. After a configurable percentage of safely replicated data blocks checks in with the NameNode (plus an additional 40 seconds), the NameNode exits the Safemode state. It then determines the list of data blocks (if any) that still have fewer than the specified number of replicas. The NameNode then replicates these blocks to other DataNodes. 19

3.5 Data Organisation 3.5.1 Data Blocks HDFS is designed to support very large files. Applications that are compatible with HDFS are those that deal with large data sets. These applications write their data only once but they read it one or more times and require these reads to be satisfied at streaming speeds. HDFS supports write-once-read-many semantics on files. A typical block size used by HDFS is 64 MB. Thus, an HDFS file is chopped up into 64 MB chunks, and if possible, each chunk will reside on a different DataNode. 3.5.2 Staging A client request to create a file does not reach the NameNode immediately. In fact, initially the HDFS client caches the file data into a temporary local file. Application writes are transparently redirected to this temporary local file. When the local file accumulates data worth over one HDFS block size, the client contacts the NameNode. The NameNode inserts the file name into the file system hierarchy and allocates a data block for it. The NameNode responds to the client request with the identity of the DataNode and the destination data block. Then the client flushes the block of data from the local temporary file to the specified DataNode. When a file is closed, the remaining un-flushed data in the temporary local file is transferred to the DataNode. The client then tells the NameNode that the file is closed. At this point, the NameNode commits the file creation operation into a persistent store. If the NameNode dies before the file is closed, the file is lost. The above approach has been adopted after careful consideration of target applications that run on HDFS. These applications need streaming writes to files. If a client writes to a remote file directly without any client side buffering, the network speed and the congestion in the network impacts throughput considerably. This approach is not without precedent. Earlier distributed file systems, e.g. AFS, have used client side caching to improve performance. A POSIX requirement has been relaxed to achieve higher performance of data uploads. 3.5.3 Replication Pipelining When a client is writing data to an HDFS file, its data is first written to a local file as explained in the previous section. Suppose the HDFS file has a replication factor of three. When the local file accumulates a full block of user data, the client retrieves a list of DataNodes from the NameNode. This list contains the DataNodes that will host a replica of 20

that block. The client then flushes the data block to the first DataNode. The first DataNode starts receiving the data in small portions (4 KB), writes each portion to its local repository and transfers that portion to the second DataNode in the list. The second DataNode, in turn starts receiving each portion of the data block, writes that portion to its repository and then flushes that portion to the third DataNode. Finally, the third DataNode writes the data to its local repository. Thus, a DataNode can be receiving data from the previous one in the pipeline and at the same time forwarding data to the next one in the pipeline. Thus, the data is pipelined from one DataNode to the next.

3.6 HDFS Features 3.6.1 Communication Protocols All HDFS communication protocols are layered on top of the TCP/IP protocol. A client establishes a connection to a configurable TCP port on the NameNode machine. It talks the ClientProtocol with the NameNode. The DataNodes talk to the NameNode using the DataNodes Protocol. A Remote Procedure Call (RPC) abstraction wraps both the Client Protocol and the DataNodes Protocol. By design, the NameNode never initiates any RPCs. Instead, it only responds to RPC requests issued by DataNodes or clients.

3.6.2 Data Disk Failure, Heartbeats and Re-Replication The primary objective of the HDFS is to store data reliably even in the presence of failures. The three common types of failures are NameNode failures, DataNodes failures and network partitions. NameNode considers DataNodes as alive as long as it receives Heartbeat message (default Heartbeat interval is three seconds) from DataNodes. If the NameNode does not receive a heartbeat from a DataNodes in ten minutes the NameNode considers the DataNodes as dead and stop forwarding IO request to it. The NameNode then schedules the creation of new replicas of those blocks on other DataNodes. Heartbeats carry information about total storage capacity, fraction of storage in use, and the number of data transfers currently in progress. These statistics are used for the NameNode‘s space allocation and load balancing decisions. The NameNode can process thousands of heartbeats per second without affecting other NameNode operations.

3.6.3 Cluster Rebalancing

21

The HDFS architecture has data rebalancing schemes in which data is automatically moved from one DataNode to another if the free space threshold is reached. In the event of a sudden high demand for a particular file, a scheme might dynamically create additional replicas and rebalance other data in the cluster. These types of data rebalancing schemes are not yet implemented.

3.6.4 Data Integrity Block of data can be corrupted due to many reasons such as network faults, buggy software or faults in a storage device. So, at the time of file creation checksum is used and stored for each block. While retrieving a file, it is first verified with those checksums and if verification fails, then another replica of data is used.

3.6.5 Metadata Disk Failure Corrupted Fsimage and the EditLog may stop the HDFS functioning. For redundancy, NameNode is configured to have multiple copies of these files and are updated synchronously.

3.7 Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages of the HDFS are: 

Reliable storage - HDFS is a fault tolerant storage system. HDFS can significantly store huge amounts of data, scale up incrementally and can effectively handle the failure of significant parts of the storage infrastructure without losing data.



Commodity hardware - HDFS is designed to run on highly unreliable hardware and so is less expensive compared to other fault tolerant storage systems.



Distributed - HDFS data are distributed over many nodes in a cluster and so parallel analyses are possible and this eliminates the bottlenecks imposed by monolithic storage systems.



Availability - Block replication is one of the main features of HDFS. By default each block is replicated by the client to three DataNodes but replication factor can be configured more than 4 at creation time. Because of replication HDFS provides high availability of data in high demand.

Limitations in HDFS are:

22

 Architectural bottlenecks - There are scheduling delays in the Hadoop architecture that result in cluster nodes waiting for new tasks. More over disk is not used in a streaming manner, the access pattern is periodic. HDFS client serializes computation and I/O instead of decoupling and pipelining those operations.  Portability limitations - HDFS being in Java could not able to support some performance-enhancing features in the native filesystem.  Small file - HDFS is not efficient for large numbers of small files.  Single MasterNode – There might be risk of data loss because of single NameNode.  Latency data access – At the expense of latency HDFS delivers a high throughput of data. If an application needs low–latency access to data then HDFS is not a good choice.

23

CHAPTER 4 HADOOP MAPREDUCE 4.1 Introduction Hadoop MapReduce is a software framework for easily writing applications which process vast amounts of data (multi-terabyte data-sets) in-parallel on large clusters (thousands of nodes) of commodity hardware in a reliable, fault-tolerant manner[8]. A MapReduce job usually splits the input data-set into independent chunks which are processed by the map tasks in a completely parallel manner. The framework sorts the outputs of the maps, which are then input to the reduce tasks. Typically both the input and the output of the job are stored in a file-system. The framework takes care of scheduling tasks, monitoring them and re-executes the failed tasks. Typically the compute nodes and the storage nodes are the same, that is, the MapReduce framework and the Hadoop Distributed File System are running on the same set of nodes. This configuration allows the framework to effectively schedule tasks on the nodes where data is already present, resulting in very high aggregate bandwidth across the cluster. The

MapReduce

framework

consists

of

a

single

master JobTracker and

one

slave TaskTracker per cluster-node. The master is responsible for scheduling the jobs' component tasks on the slaves, monitoring them and re-executing the failed tasks. The slaves execute the tasks as directed by the master. Minimally,

applications

specify

the

input/output

locations

and

supply map and reduce functions via implementations of appropriate interfaces and/or abstract-classes. These, and other job parameters, comprise the job configuration. The Hadoop job client then submits the job (jar/executable etc.) and configuration to the JobTrackerwhich

then

assumes

the

responsibility

of

distributing

the

software/configuration to the slaves, scheduling tasks and monitoring them, providing status and diagnostic information to the job-client.

4.2 Inputs and Outputs The MapReduce framework operates exclusively on pairs, that is, the framework views the input to the job as a set of pairs and produces a set of pairs as the output of the job, conceivably of different types. 24

The key and value classes have to be serializable by the framework and hence need to implement

the Writable interface.

Additionally,

the key classes

have

to

implement

the WritableComparable interface to facilitate sorting by the framework. Input and Output types of a MapReduce job: (input) -> map -> -> combine -> -> reduce -> (output)

Fig. 4.1: Map Reduce Framework

4.3 User Interfaces 4.3.1 Mapper Mapper maps input key/value pairs to a set of intermediate key/value pairs. Maps are the individual tasks that transform input records into intermediate records. The transformed intermediate records do not need to be of the same type as the input records. A given input pair may map to zero or many output pairs.

4.3.2 Reducer Reducer reduces a set of intermediate values which share a key to a smaller set of values. 25

The number of reduces for the job is set by the user via JobConf.setNumReduceTasks(int). Overall, Reducer implementations

are

passed

the JobConf for

the

job

via

the JobConfigurable.configure(JobConf) method and can override it to initialize themselves. The

framework

then

calls

reduce(

WritableComparable,Iterator,

OutputCollector,

reporter) method for each pair in the grouped inputs. Applications can then override the Closeable.close() method to perform any required cleanup. Reducer has 4 primary phases: shuffle, sort and reduce. Shuffle Input to the Reducer is the sorted output of the mappers. In this phase the framework fetches the relevant partition of the output of all the mappers, via HTTP. Sort The framework groups Reducer inputs by keys (since different mappers may have output the same key) in this stage. The shuffle and sort phases occur simultaneously; while map-outputs are being fetched they are merged. Secondary Sort If equivalence rules for grouping the intermediate keys are required to be different from those for

grouping

keys

before

reduction,

then

one

may

specify

a Comparator via

JobConf.setOutputValueGroupingComparator(Class). Since JobConf.setOutputKeyComparatorClass(Class) can

be

used

to

control

how

intermediate keys are grouped, these can be used in conjunction to simulate secondary sort on values. Reduce In this phase the reduce(WritableComparable, Iterator, OutputCollector, Reporter) method is called for each pair in the grouped inputs. The

output

of

the

reduce

task

is

typically

written

to

the FileSystem via OutputCollector.collect(WritableComparable, Writable). Applications can use the Reporter to report progress, set application-level status messages and update Counters, or just indicate that they are alive.

26

The output of the Reducer is not sorted.

4.3.3 Partitioner Partitioner partitions the key space. Partitioner controls the partitioning of the keys of the intermediate map-outputs. The key (or a subset of the key) is used to derive the partition, typically by a hash function. The total number of partitions is the same as the number of reduce tasks for the job. Hence this controls which of the m reduce tasks the intermediate key (and hence the record) is sent to for reduction.

4.3.4 Reporter Reporter is a facility for MapReduce applications to report progress, set application-level status messages and update Counters. Mapper and Reducer implementations can use the Reporter to report progress or just indicate that they are alive. In scenarios where the application takes a significant amount of time to process individual key/value pairs, this is crucial since the framework might assume that the task has timed-out and kill that task. Another way to avoid this is to set the configuration parameter mapred.task.timeout to a high-enough value (or even set it to zero for no timeouts).

4.3.5 Output Collector OutputCollector is a generalization of the facility provided by the MapReduce framework to collect data output by the Mapper or the Reducer (either the intermediate outputs or the output of the job).

4.4 Job Configuration JobConf represents a MapReduce job configuration. JobConf is the primary interface for a user to describe a MapReduce job to the Hadoop framework for execution. The framework tries to faithfully execute the job as described by JobConf,

however,

while

some

job

parameters

are

straight-forward

to

set

(e.g. setNumReduceTasks(int)), other parameters interact subtly with the rest of the framework

and/or

job

configuration

and

(e.g. setNumMapTasks(int)).

27

are

more

complex

to

set

JobConf is

typically

used

to

specify

the

Mapper,

combiner

(if

any), Partitioner, Reducer, InputFormat, OutputFormat and OutputCommitter implementation s. JobConf also indicates the set of input files (setInputPaths(JobConf, Path...) / addInputPath (JobConf,Path)) and (setInputPaths (JobConf, String) / addInputPaths(JobConf,String)) and where the output files should be written (setOutputPath (Path)).

Fig 4.2: Task Environment

4.5 MapReduce Features  Counters Counters represent global counters, defined either by the Map/Reduce framework or applications. Each Counter can be of any Enum type. Counters of a particular Enum are bunched into groups of type Counters.Group.  DistributedCache DistributedCache distributes application-specific, large, read-only files efficiently.

28

DistributedCache is a facility provided by the Map/Reduce framework to cache files (text, archives, jars and so on) needed by applications. Applications specify the files to be cached via urls (hdfs://) in the JobConf. The DistributedCache assumes that the files specified via hdfs:// urls are already present on the FileSystem. The framework will copy the necessary files to the slave node before any tasks for the job are executed on that node. Its efficiency stems from the fact that the files are only copied once per job and the ability to cache archives which are un-archived on the slaves. DistributedCache tracks the modification timestamps of the cached files. Clearly the cache files should not be modified by the application or externally while the job is executing. DistributedCache can be used to distribute simple, read-only data/text files and more complex types such as archives and jars. Archives (zip, tar, tgz and tar.gz files) areunarchived at the slave nodes. Files have execution permissions set.  Tool The Tool interface supports the handling of generic Hadoop command-line options. Tool is the standard for any Map/Reduce tool or application. The application should delegate

the

handling

of

standard

command-line

options

to GenericOptionsParser viaToolRunner.run(Tool, String[]) and only handle its custom arguments.  IsolationRunner IsolationRunner is a utility to help debug Map/Reduce programs. To use the IsolationRunner, first set keep.failed.tasks.files to true  Profiling Profiling is a utility to get a representative (2 or 4) sample of built-in java profiler for a sample of maps and reduces. User can specify whether the system should collect profiler information for some of the tasks in the job by setting the configuration property mapred.task.profile. The value can be set using the api JobConf.setProfileEnabled(boolean). If the value is set true, the task profiling is enabled. The profiler information is stored in the user log directory. By default, profiling is not enabled for the job. 29

 Debugging Map/Reduce framework provides a facility to run user-provided scripts for debugging. When map/reduce task fails, user can run script for doing post-processing on task logs i.e task's stdout, stderr, syslog and jobconf. The stdout and stderr of the user-provided debug script are printed on the diagnostics. These outputs are also displayed on job UI on demand. In the following sections we discuss how to submit debug script along with the job. For submitting debug script, first it has to distributed. Then the script has to supplied in Configuration.  JobControl JobControl is a utility which encapsulates a set of Map/Reduce jobs and their dependencies.  Data Compression Hadoop Map/Reduce provides facilities for the application-writer to specify compression for both intermediate map-outputs and the job-outputs i.e. output of the reduces. It also comes bundled with CompressionCodec implementations for the zlib and lzo compression algorithms.  Intermediate Outputs Applications

can

control

compression

of

intermediate

map-outputs

via

the JobConf.setCompressMapOutput(boolean) api and the CompressionCodec to be used via theJobConf.setMapOutputCompressorClass(Class) api.  Job Outputs Applications

can

control

compression

the FileOutputFormat.setCompressOutput(JobConf, the CompressionCodec to

be

used

can

of

job-outputs

boolean) api

and

be

via

the FileOutputFormat.setOutputCompressorClass(JobConf, Class) api.

30

via

specified

CHAPTER 5 ITEM BASED RECOMMENDER ALGORITHM 5.1 Algorithm Given a set of items that someone is known to like, recommend a new set of items that are similar to them. Two items can be regarded as similar to one another if different people like both of them. In terms of pseudo code [9]: for every item i that has u has no preference for yet for every item j that u has a preference for compute a similarity s between i and j add u‗s preference for j, weighted by s, to a running average return top items, ranked by weighted average

5.2 Logical Parts of Code The code is structured so that it breaks the recommender into four logical parts: 1. Prepare the preference matrix 2. Generate the similarity matrix 3. Prepare for matrix multiplication 4. Multiply matrices

5.2.1 Preparation of preference matrix In this step, three mapreduce jobs are executed – 1. ItemIDIndexMapper and ItemIDIndexReducer – maps item ids in the input data from Long types to Integer types. 2. ToItemPrefsMapper and ToUserVectorsReducer – generates the user-item vectors.

3. ToItemVectorsMapper and ToItemVectorsReducer – generates the item-user vectors. 31

5.2.2 Generation of similarity matrix In this step, three mapreduce jobs are executed – 1. VectorNormMapper and MergeVectorsReducer – reads in the item-user vectors and outputs them as user-item vectors, calculating statistical matrix properties in the process. These statistics are later employed in matrix calculations. 2. CooccurrencesMapper and SimilarityReducer – reads in the user-item vectors from the previous step and creates half of an item-item similarity matrix. Only half of the matrix is generated at this stage as it is symmetric along its diagonal, so the other half can be inferred. The matrix also lacks values along its diagonal.

3. UnsymmetrifyMapper and MergeToTopKSimilaritiesReducer – reads half of the item-item similarity matrix and generates an almost complete one, missing only the values along its diagonal.

5.2.3 Preparation for matrix multiplication With both the item-item similarity matrix and the user-item vectors, it‘s now possible to multiply them together and generate recommendations for users. In this part of the code, the matrix multiplication begins, again, by implementing three MapReduce jobs. 1. SimilarityMatrixRowWrapperMapper and default Reducer – completes the item-item similarity matrix by adding in Double.NaN values along its diagonal. In preparation for the item-item matrix being multiplied with the item-user vectors, it converts the matrix from VectorWritable to VectorOrPrefWritable.

32

2. UserVectorSplitterMapper and Reducer – reads in user-item vectors and outputs them as item-user vectors, formatted as VectorOrPrefWritable, to make them compatible for multiplication with the item-item matrix.

3. Default Mapper and ToVectorAndPrefReducer – combines the output from the previous two steps, thus starting the multiplication of the item-item similarity matrix with the item-user vectors.

5.2.4 Matrix multiplication Now that the item-item similarity matrix and the item-user vectors have been combined together into a single source of data, the matrix multiplication can be completed and user recommendations generated. This process is implemented in a single MapReduce job. 1. PartialMultiplyMapper and AggregateAndRecommendReducer – matrix multiplication, producing item recommendations for users.

33

completes

the

CHAPTER 6 SYSTEM PREPARATIONAND IMPLEMENTATION 6.1 Runtime Environment Hadoop engine was deployed over the 2 node cluster and Java runtime was setup to use the common Hadoop configuration, as specified by the NameNode (master node) in the cluster.

6.2 Software and Language Versions 

Hadoop 1.2.1



Java 1.6



Maven 3



Mahout 0.20

6.3 Hardware Specification of each Hadoop Node Hadoop clusters have identical hardware specifications for all the cluster nodes. Table lists the specification of nodes. Operating System

Ubuntu 12.04 LTS (64 bit)

Processor

Intel Core i3 (Quad Core)

Memory

3GB

Disk Space

160GB Table 6.1 : Hardware Specification

6.4 Hadoop Configuration /etc/hosts The /etc/hosts file in each machine contains the IP address of the nodes and their labels. In this case the labels assigned were master and slave.

hadoop-env.sh The only required environment variable that has to be configured for Hadoop is JAVA_HOME

core-site.xml 34

The following configurations are added – hadoop.tmp.dir /app/hadoop/tmp A base for other temporary directories. fs.default.name hdfs://master:54410 The name of the default file system. A URI whose scheme and authority determine the FileSystem implementation. The uri's scheme determines the config property (fs.SCHEME.impl) naming the FileSystem implementation class. The uri's authority is used to determine the host, port, etc. for a filesystem.

mapred-site.xml The following configurations are added – mapred.job.tracker localhost:54411 The host and port that the MapReduce job tracker runs at. If "local", then jobs are run in-process as a single map and reduce task.

hdfs-site.xml The following configurations are added – dfs.replication 1 Default block replication. The actual number of replications can be specified when the file is created. The default is used if replication is not specified in create time.

masters This file contains the label of the master. In this case- master is added to the file.

slaves 35

This file contains the labels of the slaves. In this case- slave is added to the file.

6.5 Starting the cluster Starting the cluster is performed in three steps

6.5.1 Formatting the Namenode This initialises the namespace and the namenode itself.

Fig. 6.1: Formatting namenode

6.5.2 Starting HDFS daemons The NameNode daemon is started on master, and DataNode daemons are started on the slave.

Fig. 6.2: HDFS daemons

6.5.3 Starting mapred daemons The JobTracker is started on master, and TaskTracker daemons are started on the slave.

36

Fig. 6.3: Mapred daemons

6.5.4 Starting the Job The jar file containing the map reduce jobs are specified as argument for hadoop.

Fig. 6.4: Starting the job

6.6 Monitoring the cluster The web interfaces provided by hadoop can be used to check the status of the jobs. The status of the namenode is shown by the following web interface

Fig. 6.5: Namenode interface Shown below is the interface for JobTracker in the master machine. It displays the number of tasks that are running and their other details.

37

Fig. 6.6: JobTracker interface

Fig. 6.7: Scheduling interface 1 38

Fig. 6.8: Scheduling interface 2

39

CHAPTER 7 RESULTS AND CONCLUSION 7.1 Results 7.1.1 Run Time The Recommendation job is run 5 times with each of the respective item similarity metrics namely similarity co-occurrence, similarity Loglikelihood, Tanimoto coefficient, Euclidian distance and Pearson coefficient. The run time of each algorithm was calculated using the linux time command which gives us the real, user and sys times taken for the command to execute and the results (time in seconds) are summarised below –

Metric/Run no. Similarity Cooccurrence Tanimoto Coefficient Similarity Loglikelihood Euclidian Distance Pearson Coefficient

1

2

4

4

5

Average

566.740

564.924

566.108

565.098

564.982

565.570

589.650

590.472

588.847

589.241

589.594

589.548

704.074

705.012

704.725

704.104

705.021

704.586

588.212

589.027

588.624

587.984

588.149

588.499

441.286

440.956

442.012

441.459

441.427

441.428

Table 7.1: Time Taken

40

800

700

600

500 Similarity Co-occurrence Tanimoto Coefficient 400

Similarity Loglikelihood Euclidian Distance

300

Pearson Coefficient

200

100

0 Average Run Time (s)

Fig 7.1: Average Run Time

7.1.2 Recommendations The Book Crossing dataset was used for the recommender job. It contained user details, book ratings and book details such as name, genre, etc. A python script was coded which takes the ratings file, users file and book details file as parameters and displays the rated books and the recommended books for the user which has been specified through the user ID in the script in the console. The rated books are displayed with the book name followed by the user rating given to them by the user. The recommendations were made based on the similarity matrix specified to them.

41

(a) Similarity Cooccurrence

Fig. 7.2: Similarity Co-occurrence Recommendations (b) Tanimoto Coefficient

Fig. 7.3: Tanimoto Recommendations 42

(c) Similarity Loglikelihood

Fig. 7.4: Loglikelihood Recommendations

(d) Euclidian Distance

Fig. 7.5: Euclidian Recommendations 43

(e) Pearson Coefficient

Fig. 7.6: Pearson Recommendations

7.2 Conclusion The recommender job was successfully run on the Hadoop distributed environment. The following conclusions can be drawn from the results above. 

The time taken by Loglikelihood is the greatest. This is so because it eliminates all the intersections by chance by counting the number of times the items occur together and also when they are not together. This increases the relevance of the recommendations but also increases the overhead.



Though the Pearson correlation takes the least time but it is used only theoretically. It has a few drawbacks in principle which do not make recommendations accurate. First, it doesn‘t take into account the number of items in which two users‘ preferences overlap, which is probably a weakness in the context of recommender engines. Two items that have been read by 100 of the same users, for instance, even if they don‘t often agree on ratings, are probably more similar than two items which have only been read by two users in common. This is not considered by this metric and similarity of the two user ratings outweighs the 100 similar users. Second, if two 44

items overlap on only one user, no correlation can be computed because of how the computation is defined. This could be an issue for small or sparse data sets, in which users‘ item sets rarely overlap. Finally, the correlation is also undefined if either series of preference values are all identical. It doesn‘t require that both series have all the same preference values. 

The run times of Euclidian distance, similarity co-occurrence and tanimoto coefficient were nearly equal and lie between Loglikelihood and Pearson coefficient.

45

CHAPTER 8 FUTURE SCOPE The system implemented in the project uses static data to recommend books to the users. To incorporate dynamic data, distributed databases such as HBase or Cassandra can be used which can be regularly updated to add new users and ratings. To make the web application, the data needs to be accessible in real time. The solution to this too can be the use of a distributed database. The recommender system can be improved by combining user based collaborative filtering and content based filtering with the current system. This combination is also called Hybrid filtering and it helps in significantly performance improvement. The comparison made between the different similarity metrics was based on the run time and not on the precision of the recommendations.

46

CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES [1] A. Felfering, G. Friedrich and Schmidt Thieme, Recommender systems, IEEE Intelligent systems, pages 18-21, 2007. [2] P. Resnick, N. Iacovou, M. Suchak, and J. Riedl, GroupLens: An Open Architecture for Collaborative Filtering of Netnews, In Proceedings of CSCW ‘94, Chapel Hill, NC, 1994. [3] U. Shardanand and P. Maes Social Information Filtering: Algorithms for Automating ’Word of Mouth’, In Proceedings of CHI ‘95. Denver, 1995. [4] Daniar Asanov, Algorithms and Methods in Recommender Systems, Berlin Institute of Technology, Berlin, 2011 [5] Badrul Sarwar , George Karypis and John Riedl, Item-Based Collaborative Filtering Recommendation Algorithms, IW3C2: Hong Kong, China, 2001 [Online]. http://wwwconference.org/www10/cdrom/papers/519/index.html [6] Francesco Ricci, Lior Rokach and Bracha Shapira, Introduction to Recommender System Handbook, New York: Springer Science+Buisness Media Ltd, 2011, ch. 1, sec. 1.4, pp 10-14. [7] D. Borthakur and S. Dhruba, HDFS architecture guide, Hadoop Apache Project, 2008 [Online]. http://hadoop.apache.org/common/docs/current/hdfsdesign.pdf [8] Dean, Jeffrey, and Sanjay Ghemawat, MapReduce: simplified data processing on large clusters, Communications of the ACM 51.1, 2008, pp 107-113. [9] Linden, Greg, Brent Smith, and Jeremy York, Amazon.com recommendations: Item-toitem collaborative filtering, Internet Computing, IEEE 7.1, 2003, pp 76-80.

47