Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Zookeeper >> mail # user >> zookeeper ensemble with hbase (versus single node)


Copy link to this message
-
Re: zookeeper ensemble with hbase (versus single node)
Koert,
 I think this is a more appropriate question for the HBase mailing
list. HBase uses ZooKeeper for Master failover. It is possible that if
the Master is down and namenode/others are up, HBase can failiover to
the new master. You have a good point of having ZK running on
Master/NN/SNN, so you'd have to avoid running ZK on those machines.
Hope that helps.

mahadev

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Koert Kuipers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in various places i have read that in production one should really have a
> zookeeper ensemble (with an odd number of members) as opposed to a single
> zookeeper. this was also mentioned for example in the base documentation.
> however, if your cluster has a single machine with namenode, secondary
> namenode and hbase master, what is the benefit of having a zookeeper
> cluster? if that one machine goes down your hbase isn't doing anything
> anyhow, so why even bother running a zookeeper ensemble in this case? why
> not just use a single zookeeper?
>
> are the performance benefits a reason to run a zookeeper ensemble even in
> this scenario? (faster reads perhaps)
>
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB