Mohammad Tariq 2012-12-12, 15:02
Ted Dunning 2012-12-12, 15:44
-Re: Sane max storage size for DN
Mohammad Tariq 2012-12-12, 15:52
Thank you so much for the valuable response Ted.
No, there would be dedicated storage for NN as well.
Any tips on RAM & N/W?
*Computations are not really frequent.
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Ted Dunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes it does make sense, depending on how much compute each byte of data
> will require on average. With ordinary Hadoop, it is reasonable to have
> half a dozen 2TB drives. With specialized versions of Hadoop considerably
> more can be supported.
> From what you say, it sounds like you are suggesting that your name node
> get a part of a single drive with the rest being shared with other virtual
> instances or with an OS partition. That would be a really bad idea for
> performance. Many Hadoop programs are I/O bound so having more than one
> spindle is a good thing.
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Mohammad Tariq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>> Hello list,
>> I don't know if this question makes any sense, but I would like
>> to ask, does it make sense to store 500TB (or more) data in a single DN?If
>> yes, then what should be the spec of other parameters *viz*. NN & DN
>> RAM, N/W etc?If no, what could be the alternative?
>> Many thanks.
>> Mohammad Tariq
Michael Segel 2012-12-12, 18:58
Mohammad Tariq 2012-12-13, 03:52