bigtop-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Leidle, Rob" <lei...@amazon.com>
Subject Re: possible bug in puppet installation?
Date Sun, 30 Nov 2014 00:48:22 GMT
You are correct. That is what I was confused about and it made sense after I researched the
purpose of secondary namenode. 



> On Nov 29, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Leidle, Rob <leidle@amazon.com> wrote:
>> Thank you for the reply. I would think that is how it would work. However,
>> isn¹t that script starting the secondary-namenode service when ha is
>> ³disabled²? That¹s the behavior I am seeing. I have no configured for HA
>> yet secondary namenode is being configured and started by the puppet
>> scripts.
> 
> I think you're being confused by the terminology here. Seconadary name
> node is a very old piece of HDFS and it has little to do with HA. When HA
> was implemented in HDFS a notion of a stand-by namemode was introduced.
> With that a need for a secondary namenode disappeared.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roman.

Mime
View raw message