If it's not possible to restart the NN daemon on the same box, then yes.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Rahul Bhattacharjee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Thanks to all of you for precise and complete responses.
> o in case of failure we have to bring another backup system up with the
> fsimage and edit logs from the NFS filer.
> SNN stays as is for the new NN.
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Azuryy Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> for Hadoopv2, there is HA, so SNN is not necessary.
>> On Apr 3, 2013 10:41 PM, "Rahul Bhattacharjee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I was reading about Hadoop and got to know that there are two ways to
>>> protect against the name node failures.
>>> 1) To write to a nfs mount along with the usual local disk.
>>> 2) Use secondary name node. In case of failure of NN , the SNN can take
>>> in charge.
>>> My questions :-
>>> 1) SNN is always lagging , so when SNN becomes primary in event of a NN
>>> failure , then the edits which have not been merged into the image file
>>> would be lost , so the system of SNN would not be consistent with the NN
>>> before its failure.
>>> 2) Also I have read that other purpose of SNN is to periodically merge
>>> the edit logs with the image file. In case a setup goes with option #1
>>> (writing to NFS, no SNN) , then who does this merging.