varun kumar 2013-03-23, 07:04
Harsh J 2013-03-23, 10:33
David Parks 2013-03-24, 01:21
-Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?
Harsh J 2013-03-24, 04:39
Yep, this is correct - you only need the SecondaryNameNode in 1.x. In
2.x, if you run HA, the standby NameNode role also doubles up
automatically as the SNN so you don't need to run an extra.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:51 AM, David Parks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So... the answer is... SecondaryNameNode is what I should be installing
> here. And the SecondaryNameNode is essentially just an earlier version of
> the checkpoint node, in terms of functionality. If I understood everything
> correctly. Can you confirm?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harsh J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33 PM
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
> Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was a
> documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or by next
> release I think).
> And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the SecondaryNameNode
> continues to exist and is fully supported (not deprecated).
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hope below link will be useful..
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
>>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
>>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>> Varun Kumar.P
> Harsh J