Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
HDFS >> mail # dev >> Merging Namenode Federation feature (HDFS-1052) to trunk


+
Suresh Srinivas 2011-03-03, 22:41
+
Allen Wittenauer 2011-03-12, 16:43
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2011-03-14, 17:28
+
Dhruba Borthakur 2011-03-14, 17:43
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2011-03-15, 01:12
+
Travis Crawford 2011-03-15, 05:36
+
suresh srinivas 2011-03-15, 06:19
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2011-03-16, 22:52
+
suresh srinivas 2011-03-16, 23:54
+
suresh srinivas 2011-03-16, 23:55
+
Sanjay Radia 2011-03-14, 17:57
+
Sanjay Radia 2011-03-21, 23:08
+
Brian Bockelman 2011-03-21, 23:25
+
suresh srinivas 2011-03-24, 09:28
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Merging Namenode Federation feature (HDFS-1052) to trunk

On Mar 21, 2011, at 4:08 PM, Sanjay Radia wrote:
>
> Allen, not sure if I explained the difference above.
> Base on the discussion we had at the Hug, I want to clarify a few things

Thanks for taking the time at HUG.  (I've since figured out that I lost your messages as part of my email list transition.)

> A DN stores block for only ONE cluster.
But this does make things easier.  Although I'm still fairly confident that it adds too much complexity for little gain though.  So put this in the 'agree to disagree' column.  It would still be nice if you guys could lay off the camelCase options though.  Admins hate the shift key.

BTW, Robert C. asked what I thought you guys should have been working on instead of Federation.  I told him (and you) high availability of the namenode (which I still believe is necessary for HDFS in more and more cases), but I've had more time to think about it.  So expect my list (which I'll post here) soon.  :p
+
suresh srinivas 2011-03-24, 09:34