bigtop-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Boudnik <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: possible bug in puppet installation?
Date Sat, 29 Nov 2014 00:07:41 GMT
The logic here is that in HA environment you can go without a secondary node
because your standby will carry on a copy of your primary's editlogs. As an
optimization you can cut off a checkpointing overhead.

Hope it helps,
  Cos

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 08:06PM, Leidle, Rob wrote:
> I am running into an issue with the puppet installation, and I think it is a bug (although
I don’t want to submit a patch for it until I make sure I understand the issue completely).
When I do not specify a secondary name node I am seeing both the namenode and the secondary
name node being installed and configured. The bug, I believe, is in the cluster.pp file:
> 
> https://github.com/apache/bigtop/blob/master/bigtop-deploy/puppet/manifests/cluster.pp
> 
> On line 224 the logic for secondary namenode is present:
> 
> if ($hadoop_ha == "disabled") { hadoop::secondarynamenode { "secondary namenode":
> namenode_host => $hadoop_namenode_host,
> namenode_port => $hadoop_namenode_port,
> auth => $hadoop_security_authentication,
> }
> }
> 
> So, I think this is in error and the code should only execute if $hadoop_ha is not equal
to “disabled”. Ie change the equals to a not equals. Can someone who understands these
puppet scripts chime in and let me know if this is the appropriate patch to make? Or am I
not understanding something about these installations?

Mime
View raw message